Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aasha Rani vs Kamal And Ors on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-640-2021 (O&M)
Reserved on : 11.11.2024
Pronounced on : 19.11.2024
Aasha Rani ....Appellant
VERSUS
Kamal & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant against the judgements and decrees dated 19.08.2017 and
13.12.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
dismissing her suit for possession by way of specific performance and for
permanent injunction.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant averring that Sita
Ram, father of defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 was owner in possession
of the suit property and he through his GPA Sh. Chain Singh agreed to sell
the same to the plaintiff-appellant for a sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- upon
executing an agreement to sell dated 17.08.1992 after receiving the entire
sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- in presence of witnesses and handing over
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff-appellant. As per the plaintiff-
appellant the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was not
fixed. It was further averred that Sita Ram had expired on 27.06.1994 and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150267
the plaintiff-appellant had requested his legal heirs i.e. defendant-respondent
Nos.1 and 2 several times to execute the sale deed in her favour and had also
got a legal notice dated 15.11.2013 issued to them to execute the sale deed in
her favour on or before 05.12.2013. On 05.12.2013 the plaintiff-appellant
remained present at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tohana and waited for
the defendant-respondents but they did not come present. It was further
averred that the plaintiff-appellant has always been ready and is still ready
and willing to perform her part of the contract. Hence, the present suit. The
defendant-respondents did not put in appearance and were proceeded against
ex-parte.
3. Vide judgement and decree dated 19.08.2017 the Trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. The appeal of the plaintiff-
appellant was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgement
and decree dated 13.12.2019. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that
both the Courts have erred in dismissing her suit. It is urged that the
agreement to sell dated 17.08.1992 stood fully proved and therefore the suit
for specific performance ought to have been decreed. It is also argued that
since the defendant-respondents did not contest the suit the Courts should
have decreed the same.
5. Heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
6. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant has been unable to
prove the due execution of the agreement to sell set-up by her. The Trial
Court found that "A perusal of the case file reveals that in this case plaintiff
has sought the specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.8.1992.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150267
However, a perusal of the said agreement to sell dated 17.8.1992 reveals
that it has not been prepared on any stamp papers whereas it has been
prepared on a simple paper. It is worth mentioning here that plaintiff is the
real daughter-in-law of the Chain Singh, alleged GPA of Sita Ram, the
original owner. It is also worth mentioning here that Sita Ram had got
expired way back in the year 1994 whereas the present suit has been filed by
the plaintiff in the year 2014 i.e. after 20 years of death of original owner. In
these circumstances, unless and until proved to the contrary it becomes very
doubtful that the alleged agreement to sell was executed by Sh.Chain Singh
in favour of plaintiff during the subsistence of the alleged GPA dated
13.3.1989. The possibility of the fact that Sita Ram may have got expired
and thereafter, Chain Singh being aware of the fact that alleged GPA dated
13.3.1989 had become a worthless document, got executed the alleged
agreement to sell dated 17.08.1992 in favour of his daughter-in-law on a
simple paper so that the title of legal heirs of Sita Ram can be defeated in
the suit property. Thus, the alleged agreement to sell dated 17.8.1992 cannot
be relied upon". The said findings recorded by the Trial Court were affirmed
by the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts have also held that the suit was
barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has been
unable to point towards any cogent and reliable evidence on the record to
dislodge the said conclusions. Merely because the defendant-respondents did
not appear before the Courts would not ipso facto mean that the suit of the
plaintiff-appellant deserved to be decreed. The mere failure or neglect of a
defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the
plaint does not entitle the plaintiff to a judgment in his favour unless by
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150267
adducing evidence he proves his case/claim. The weak evidence led by the
plaintiff-appellant in the present case does not warrant decreeing her suit. No
other point was argued.
7. In view of the above, no mistake or error of law or facts can be
found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No
question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the
present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
19.11.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
jk JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
