Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh & Another vs Bhupinder Singh & Others --Respondents on 17 April, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1447 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.4.2012.
Ranjit Singh & another --Appellants
Versus
Bhupinder Singh & others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the appellanst.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J The plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
A suit for possession by way of specific performance pertaining to contract dated 14.8.1997 in respect to the suit property was filed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that in terms of the agreement to sell dated 14.8.1997 executed between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 the suit property had been agreed to be sold @ Rs.3 lacs per acre and Rs.1 lac had been paid as earnest money to defendant no.1. The date for registration of the sale deed had been fixed on 30.12.1997. On such date the plaintiffs had presented themselves before the office of the Sub Registrar, Rajpura for getting the sale deed executed along with the balance sale consideration but defendant no.1 had not come present. Defendant no.2 had started claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of sale deed having been executed by defendant no.1 in his favour and the plaintiffs had, accordingly, served notice on 18.5.1999 and ultimately had filed a suit for specific performance. In the alternative the plaintiffs also prayed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,44,000/- towards refund of earnest money as also damages RSA No.1447 of 2012(O&M) -2- on account of non-performance of the contract.
Defendant no.1 contested the suit taking a stand that the alleged agreement dated 14.8.1997 was a forged and fabricated document. Defendant no.2 also contested the suit stating that he had purchased the suit property vide sale deed executed on 8.4.1999 for valuable consideration and without notice of the alleged agreement to sell dated 14.8.1997. Defendant no.2 as such set up the plea of being a bonafide purchaser.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck by the Trial Court:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement dt. 14.8.97 by getting the sale deed registered in respect of ½ share of Bhupinder Singh over the land in dispute?OPP.
2. Whether the sale deeds executed by Bhupinder Singh in respect of ½ share over the suit property in favour of Gurmail Singh are wrong, illegal and void?OPP.
3. Whether the mutation sanctioned in favour of Gurmail Singh on the basis of sale deeds is liable to be set aside?OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the alternative relief as prayed for?OPP.
6. Whether the alleged agreement dt. 14.8.97 is forged and fictitious document and is without consideration?OPD.
7. Whether a false and frivolous suit has been filed by the plaintiff as against defendant no.1 and same is liable to be dismissed?OPD.
8. Relief."
The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgement dated 2.9.2008 and held the plaintiffs to be entitled to recovery of Rs.1 lac i.e refund of the earnest money along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the RSA No.1447 of 2012(O&M) -3- agreed date of execution of the sale deed i.e. 30.12.1997 till the actual realization. In terms of the impugned judgement dated 25.11.2011 the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala has affirmed the judgement and decree of the Trial Court in a civil appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants.
I have heard Mr. Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate appearing for the appellants at length.
Learned counsel would vehemently argue that the courts below have held the agreement to sell to be duly proved and having also held the appellants to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the main relief as regards specific performance in relation to the contract could not have been denied. Learned counsel would place reliance upon a judgement of this Court rendered in case of Kishan Lal Vs. Chandro reported as 2004(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 117.
It is in terms of concurrent findings of fact the agreement to sell dated 14.8.1997 (Ex.P-1) has been held to be a genuine and valid document and duly executed. The payment of earnest money of Rs.1 lac by the present appellants to defendant no.1 Bhupender Singh has also been held to be duly proved. The sale deed Ex.DX dated 8.4.1999 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 pertaining to the suit property for valuable consideration also stands proved on record. The courts below have taken a view to hold defendant no.2 to be a bonafide purchaser as regards the suit property and they, accordingly, exercised their discretion to grant to the appellants herein the alternate relief of refund of earnest money along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed i.e. 30.12.1997 till the realization of such RSA No.1447 of 2012(O&M) -4- decretal amount.
It is well settled that granting a decree for specific performance of a contract in relation to an immovable property is not automatic. Such relief has been held to be discretionary but such discretion is to be exercised on sound principles. The courts in such matters would be guided by justice, equity and fairness to both the parties.
The last date for execution of the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 14.8.1997 had been stipulated as 30.12.1997. As per the appellants' own case a notice was served upon the defendants on 18.5.1999 and the suit had been instituted on 1.6.1999. No evidence has been adduced on record by the plaintiffs-appellants so as to arrive at a conclusion that defendant no.2 namely Gurmail Singh had any prior knowledge with respect to an agreement to sell dated 14.8.1997 having been executed between the present appellants and defendant no.1 Bhupinder Singh. That apart after 30.12.1997 i.e. the last date stipulated for execution of the sale deed and up to 1.6.1999 i.e. when the suit was instituted, the plaintiffs-appellants had not taken any steps in the nature of a precaution of having moved an application before the office of the concerned Sub Registrar so as to ensure that no sale deed be registered pertaining to the suit property without notice to them on the basis of the agreement to sell executed in their favour by defendant no.1 and neither was any such information put across to the concerned revenue officials. Admittedly, the present appellants had themselves even prayed for the alternate relief of refund of earnest money as also damages.
Under such circumstances, I find no basis to interfere with the conclusions drawn by the courts below, whereby a discretion has been RSA No.1447 of 2012(O&M) -5- exercised to grant the alternate relief to the appellants herein as opposed to the specific performance of the contract. Such exercise of discretion is based on due appreciation of evidence and is based upon cogent and valid reasoning.
For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law much less a substantial question of law.
Appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE 17.4.2012.
lucky Whether to be reported? No.