Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhbir vs Virender Singh And Ors on 24 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053322
RSA-467-2021 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-467-2021(O&M)
Decided on : 24.04.2025
Sukhbir
...... Appellant
Versus
Virender Singh and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
***
Present : Mr. P.K.Chugh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate
Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate and
Ms. Apoorva Kinra, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
None for respondents No.2 to 4.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, vide which the suit for recovery, filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.
3. The plaintiffs Virender Singh, Jai Kanwar and Sukhbir instituted a 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:50:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053322 RSA-467-2021 (O&M) 2 suit for recovery of Rs.28,37,500/- along with interest. The case set up was that vide agreement to sell dated 18.01.2012, the defendant (Sukhbir) had agreed to sell his agricultural land measuring 11 kanals 19 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated in the revenue estate of Village Garh Shahjahanpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') to the plaintiffs. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1 crore per acre and Rs.25 lacs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 18.07.2012. As per the plaintiffs, the defendant was required to obtain an NOC from the concerned department before 18.07.2012. The defendant applied for the same on 27.06.2012 but the same was not granted. On 18.07.2012, the plaintiffs went to the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the balance sale consideration but the defendant did not turn up and upon being asked, he stated that since the NOC had not been received, he did not come to the office of the Sub-Registrar.
4. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that the intention of the defendant became dishonest as a result of which legal notice dated 19.07.2012 was issued by the defendant alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell by the plaintiffs. It was stated that the agreement stood cancelled and earnest money stood forfeited. Upon this, the plaintiffs inquired about the status of the NOC from the office of the District Town Planner, Sonepat where they were told that the request for issuing NOC in favour of the plaintiffs could not be considered because the licence for setting up a residential colony over the land which included the suit property had already been granted in favour of M/s Rangoli Projects Private Limited and M/s Rising Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited in 2007. Another legal notice dated 24.08.2012 was got issued by the defendant which was duly replied on 31.08.2012 by the plaintiffs 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:50:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053322 RSA-467-2021 (O&M) 3 requesting the defendant to refund the earnest money. The defendant, instead of refunding the amount, got issued two more legal notices as a result of which the suit was filed.
5. The defendant opposed the suit. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estopple etc. were raised. On merits, the execution of the agreement to sell was admitted. It was averred that on 18.07.2012, the plaintiffs did not come to the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the balance sale consideration and funds for execution and registration of the sale deed whereas the defendant duly appeared. Thereafter, despite the defendant having been requested number of times to get the sale deed registered, the plaintiffs did not do so and kept on putting off the matter. Thereafter, the facts as regards the issuance of legal notices were pleaded. It was averred that even vide legal notice dated 19.10.2012, the plaintiffs had been called upon to appear in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 30.10.2012 but they did not turn up. It was averred that it was for the plaintiffs to obtain NOC from the concerned department and that the defendant had signed the required documents. As regards licence No.221 of 2007, it was averred that the same had expired in 2009 i.e. prior to the execution of the agreement to sell and was never renewed. It was, therefore, pleaded that no case was made out to refund the earnest money which stood forfeited.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of recovery of Rs.2837500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:50:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053322 RSA-467-2021 (O&M) 4 present form and the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the court ? OPD
4. Relief"
7. Parties led their respective evidence.
8. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present regular second appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has submitted that both the Courts gravely erred in decreeing the suit for recovery. Learned counsel has referred to the oral and documentary evidence led on the record of the case as also the judgments passed by both the Courts and has submitted that the said judgments are not sustainable. Learned counsel has submitted that despite cogent evidence having been led, the Courts erroneously decreed the suit. It has been submitted that there was no condition of obtaining an NOC imposed upon the defendant and a false stand had been taken by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and in the absence of the same, even suit for recovery could not have been decreed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. Versus Hartar Singh Sangha 2011 (1) RCR (Civil).
11. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:50:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053322 RSA-467-2021 (O&M) 5 (respondents No.2 to 4 did not put in appearance despite service) has submitted that there is no illegality in the judgments under challenge. It has been submitted that it was duly proved on record that the NOC was not obtained by the defendant as a result of which the sale deed could not be executed. Learned counsel submits that it had been proved on record that the plaintiffs had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar on the appointed day for the execution of the sale deed but the defendant did not appear and subsequently started issuing legal notices with a view to avoid the execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel has submitted that the mere fact that the plaintiffs were present on the appointed day in the office of the Sub-Registrar with the balance sale consideration shows that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. Learned counsel has referred to the oral and documentary evidence led on the record of the case and has submitted that there is absolutely no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts.
12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
13. The agreement to sell dated 18.01.2012 is on record as Ex.P9. The execution of the same stands admitted. Clause 7 of the agreement to sell stated that all legal obligations as regards the land would be that of the owner of the land. It shows that there was no specific clause as regards NOC. However, Ex.P1 shows that an application dated 12.01.2012 had been submitted by the defendant for the grant of NOC. Ex.P2 is the affidavit executed by the defendant and Ex.P3 is the affidavit executed by the authorized representative of M/s Konark Beltech Private Limited. Ex.P5 is a communication issued by the office of the District Town Planner, Sonepat to the defendant which refers to the application for NOC 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:50:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053322 RSA-467-2021 (O&M) 6 moved by the defendant. The communication states that the NOC cannot be considered because of the land being included in the land for which licence No.221 of 2007 had been granted. Ex.D5 is the NOC dated 31.01.2012 issued to Mukhtiar Singh for sale of lands to M/s Konark Beltech Private Limited. The documents, therefore, show that an application for grant of NOC was moved but the same was declined on account of a licence having been granted. The argument that the licence expired in 2009 and was thereafter not renewed is devoid of merit because in any case, the NOC was declined on the ground of a licence being there. PW1 Krishan Kumar who appeared from the office of District Town Planner, Sonepat proved the said document. The legal notices issued by the defendant also support the case of the plaintiffs that NOC was to be obtained prior to the execution of the sale deed. Reply dated 11.09.2012 (Ex.D8) was issued by the plaintiffs to the legal notice dated 31.08.2012. Ex.D9 which is also a legal notice also calling upon the plaintiffs to obtain an NOC. If an NOC was not required as per the defendant, then there was no occasion for the defendant to write to the plaintiffs that NOC should be obtained. It appears that the defendant was simply buying time and was evading execution of the sale deed. Sensing this, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery well in time i.e. on 05.11.2012. The plaintiffs had probably sensed the intentions of the defendant that what to talk of executing a sale deed, he was wanting to forfeit the earnest money also. So, with a view to avoid that, the plaintiffs, instead of filing a suit for specific performance, chose to file a suit for recovery. In the considered opinion of this Court, there was no bar in filing such a suit. Of course, if a suit for specific performance is filed and alternate relief of recovery is not sought, the refund of earnest money is not to be ordered. However, it does not mean that a suit for recovery cannot be 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:50:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053322 RSA-467-2021 (O&M) 7 preferred. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mudureddipalle Sanjeeva Reddy versus Butturu Rama Mohan Reddy and others 2009 (32) RCR (Civil) 409 and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Chaudhary Rambabu Singh versus Dalip Kumar and another 1981 AIR Madhya Pradesh 158.
14. As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. Versus Hartar Singh Sangha (supra), the same pertains to readiness and willingness to be proved in a suit for specific performance and not in a suit for recovery. It would, therefore, not come to the aid of the appellant.
15. Both the Courts examined the matter from the correct perspective and rightly decreed the suit.
That being so, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
24.04.2025
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 29-04-2025 23:50:44 :::