Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manohar Lal vs Rani Devi on 24 February, 2025
RSA-2284-2022 (O&M) Page 1 of 8
IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
108 RSA-2284-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.02.2025
Manohar Lal ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Rani Devi ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-7916-C-2022
Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for
condonation of delay of 06 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application which is
supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed
and delay of 06 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
RSA-2284-2022 (O&M)
The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of
the respondent/plaintiff for possession, or in alternative, suit for recovery
of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, has been decreed by
both the Courts below.
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status
before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the 'defendant'; and the
respondent is the 'plaintiff'.
3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the
defendant is the owner of the suit house as described in the plaint. The
defendant agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff, vide Agreement to Sell
dated 06.07.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 4.50 lacs. The entire sale
consideration was paid by plaintiff at the time of execution of said
Agreement. It was stipulated in the Agreement that plaintiff can get the sale
deed executed as and when she desires and that expenses of registration
and stamp shall be borne by plaintiff. It was further stipulated that
Agreement can be enforced through Court; and if defendant fails to execute
sale deed, he shall be liable to pay the double amount i.e. Rs. 9 lacs to the
plaintiff. The possession of suit property was delivered to plaintiff at the
time of execution of Agreement; but after execution of Agreement, the
defendant requested the plaintiff to allow him to use the suit property on
the pretext that he needed time to arrange for some other residence for
himself and his family. Both the parties were neighbours and well known to
each other so plaintiff agreed and vide writing dated 06.07.2015 itself,
allowed the defendant to use the suit property till 10.07.2016. The plaintiff
has been ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform her part
of agreement. After 10.07.2016, the plaintiff has been requesting the
defendant to execute sale deed and deliver possession of suit property but
the defendant has been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.
A legal notice dated 18.07.2016 was issued calling upon the defendant to
execute the sale deed on 1.8.2016, in terms of Agreement dated
06.07.2015 but despite notice, the defendant did not turn up on
01.08.2016. The plaintiff remained present at office of Sub-Registrar,
Gurdaspur along with expenses of stamp, registration and sundry expenses
and got her presence marked but defendant did not turn up and finally
refused to execute sale deed. Hence the present suit.
4. Upon notice, appellant/defendant appeared and filed written
statement resisting the suit on various grounds stating that husband of
plaintiff namely Balbir Dass had purchased three shops from mother of
defendant namely Maya Devi wife of Sewa Ram and has only paid Rs.
1,20,000/- for three shops. The defendant received balance amount from
husband of plaintiff. Signature of defendant on some documents had been
taken as defendant was mentally upset due to chronic ailment of his wife
Sudesh Kumari. Huge amount has been spent on treatment and last rites of
wife of defendant. Now the defendant is mentally upset. No agreement for
sale of house and one shop has been executed by defendant in favour of
plaintiff. Denying rest of the averments, dismissal of suit was prayed for.
5. No replication was filed by the plaintiff.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed vide order dated 14.09.2017: -
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for?
OPP
ii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?
OPD
iii. Whether plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the
court is so, its effect? OPD
iv. Whether the plaintiff has not come to court with clean
hand? OPD
v. Relief.
7. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the
parties, the ld. trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant. Accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated
23.09.2019, the learned Civil Judge(Junior division), Gurdaspur decreed the
suit of the plaintiff with costs holding her entitled to possession by way of
specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2015. The defendant
was further directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and
deliver possession within a period of two months from the date of the
judgment failing which the plaintiff can get the same executed by process of
Court. The appeal filed by the defendant against the said judgment and
decree dated 23.09.2019 was dismissed by the ld. District Judge, Gurdaspur
vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2021. Hence, present second
appeal.
8. Ld. counsel for the appellant/defendant assails the judgments
and decrees of the ld. Courts below by submitting that the learned Courts
below have failed to appreciate that the Agreement in question was never
executed. The defendant had merely received the balance payment qua
three other shops which were bought by the plaintiff; and that the
signature of the defendant was taken on blank papers by the plaintiff which
was later converted to present Agreement to Sell. It is submitted that it was
proved on record by the defendant that he has only residential house/suit
property, and no other property. As such, the defendant had never agreed
to sell his residential house in favour of the plaintiff for such a meagre
amount. No doubt, the defendant was going through difficult time as his
wife was suffering from Cancer and for this reason, the defendant was
under mental depression and was short of funds. However, the plea of
hardship raised by the defendant has not been discussed by the learned
Courts below.
9. It is contended that in the Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2015,
no target date for execution of sale deed was fixed. This clearly casts
shadow of doubt on the execution of any such Agreement. Moreover, vide
separate writing of even dated 06.07.2015, the defendant was allowed to
reside in his own residential house upto 10.07.2016. It is submitted that if
any such Agreement to Sell was executed between the parties, there was
no question for permitting the defendant to reside in his own residential
house. However, these material aspects have been ignored by the learned
Courts below while recording the impugned findings. It is submitted that
once the plaintiff claims that possession has been delivered to her in
pursuance of alleged Agreement to Sell, Agreement was mandatorily
required to be registered in view of the provisions of Registration Act. It is
contended that non-registration of the Agreement itself goes to show that
no such Agreement was ever executed. It is accordingly prayed that the
present appeal be allowed; and impugned judgments and decrees be set
aside.
10. No other argument is raised on behalf of the defendant.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and
perused the case file in great detail.
12. Learned counsel for the defendant has raised three-fold
contentions before this Court to the effect that Agreement to Sell dated
06.07.2015 (Ex.P1) in respect of the suit house was never executed by the
defendant; no target date was fixed for execution of sale deed; and that it
was the sole residential house of the defendant and, therefore, there was
no question of selling the same.
13. I find no merit in the submissions made by the
appellant/defendant. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the
defendant had executed the disputed Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2015
(Ex.P1) in respect of the house measuring 3 Marlas/suit property for total
sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. The said Agreement stands duly proven
from the evidence of attesting witness PW2 Santokh Rai, and Scribe PW1
Tarsem Masih. Both the above said witnesses confirm that Agreement was
executed at the instance of the defendant. Even the plaintiff as PW3 had
confirmed the execution of Agreement. Although defendant (DW/1) had
denied executing the Agreement, however, he had failed to explain his
signature in the register of the Scribe (Ex.Px). In fact during his cross-
examination, the defendant had admitted executing the Agreement and
even receiving the full sale consideration. The defendant has further
admitted that initially possession was delivered to the plaintiff. The
objection of the defendant in respect of some other shops purchased by
the plaintiff from Maya Devi was rightly rejected being not material to the
present case; and therefore, it was held that there was no concealment of
facts on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant had further admitted that
entire sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- was fully paid by the plaintiff to
the defendant at the time of Agreement to Sell. Even readiness and
willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract was admitted by the
defendant. In view of the above evidence, the Agreement in question stood
duly proven on record.
14. The defendant has misled that no target date was set as per
the said Agreement (Ex.P1). Admittedly, the said Agreement stipulated that
the plaintiff can get the sale deed executed at any time as per her desire.
Further, the said Agreement to Sell contains a Legal Enforcement and
Penalty Clause stipulating that if the defendant failed to execute the sale
deed, he would be liable to pay the double amount i.e. Rs.9 lacs to the
plaintiff. The Agreement further specifies that expenses for registration and
stamp duty would be borne by the plaintiff. The possession of the suit
property was handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution of
Agreement to Sell itself. However, keeping in view the strained
circumstances of the defendant, the plaintiff had acceded to the request of
the defendant for temporary use of the suit property after the execution of
the Agreement, as it was stated by the defendant that he needed some
time to arrange alternative premises as residence for himself. As both the
parties were neighbours and well acquainted, the plaintiff had agreed and
through a separate writing document dated 06.07.2015 had permitted the
defendant to use the property till 10.07.2016. However, the defendant
failed to vacate the said premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff had issued legal
notice dated 18.07.2016 demanding execution of sale deed on 01.08.2016.
Despite the notice, the defendant did not appear to execute the sale deed
on 01.08.2016 although the plaintiff remained in the office of Sub-Registrar
along with all expenses.
15. The learned Courts below also found numerous contradictions
in the case put up by the defendant to the effect that in his written
statement the defendant had claimed that his mother Maya Devi had sold
three shops to the plaintiff; whereas in his cross-examination, he stated that
only one shop was sold and expressed ignorance about the sale made by his
mother.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to explain, dispute,
or controvert the above said facts and findings .
17. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is hereby
dismissed.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
24.02.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
