Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohtash Since Deceased Thru Lrs And Ors vs Sat Parkash And Ors on 28 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042820
Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
113 RSA-15011-2018(O&M)
Date of decision: 28.03.2025
Rohtash Kumar since deceased through LRs & Others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sat Parkash & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Chanderhas Yadav,, Advocate
for the appellants.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration declaration, specific performance of agreement dated 14.06.2005, 14.06.2005, and mandatory injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts of the case ass per perthe appellant/plaintiff are that the parties had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 14.06.2005 in respect of the suit land as described in the plaint. The sale consideration amount mutually decided between the parties was Rs.13,86, Rs.13,86,000/- out of which the plaintiff had paid Rs.3 lakh lakh as earnest money which was received by the defendants No.1 and 2. Target date for execution of the Sale Deed was 14.10.2005. On 14.10.2005, plaintiffs were present in the office of Sub Sub--
Registrar with the balance sale consideration.However, the defendan defendants had got their presence marked before the Sub-Registrar Sub Registrar on 14.10.2005 only at 5 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 21:58:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042820 Page 2 of 6 pm.. Plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. Legal notice dated 21.01.2008 was also sent to the defendants through their counsel. But no satisfactory reply was received. Thereafter, the defendants have sold the suit land to defendants No.3 and 4 vide Sale Deed No.437 dated 21.12.2005 in respect espect of which mutation No.896 No.8968A A dated 22.01.2006 and mutation No.9366 dated 19.01.2006 was sanction sanctioned ed in favour of the defendants No.3 and 4 respectively. Subsequently, defendants No.3 and 4 also further sold the suit land vide Sale Deed No.578 dated 24.03.2006 to defendant No.5 in respect of which mutation numbers 9672 and 9163 both dated 30.06.2006 wa wass sanctioned in favour of the defendant No.5. Accordingly, a declaration was sought that the said Sale Deeds are illegal, null and void.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it is not disputed that the plaintiffs had duly appeared before the Sub-- Registrar on 14.10.2005 to get the Sale Deed registered. However, it was the defendant who had appeared only at 5 pm due to which Sale Deed could not be registered.
registered. It is submitted that the only ground on which the Courts below have non-suited suited the plaintiffs is that plaintiff was unable to show that he had balance sale consideration on the date fixed. Learned counsel contends that it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate the availability of funds. In support of his cont contention, ention, learned counsel relies upon judgment of Madras High Court in "Lakshmi Ammal & 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 21:58:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042820 Page 3 of 6 Others Vs. Gejaraj (died) Kuppuswamy & Others" Law Finder Doc ID # 1980705; judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Basavaraj Vs. Padmavathi" Law Finder Doc ID # 2101204 2101204; judgment udgment of this Court in "Harish Kumar & Others Vs. Mohinder Singh & Others" Law Finder doc ID # 1141903; and "Bhag Ram Vs. Pala Singh & Others" Law Finder Doc ID # 38344. Ld. Counsel refers in particular to judgment of Bhag Ram (supra) to submit that it has been held therein that as per Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act "...it is not essential for the plaintiff to tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed by the Court...". It is accordingly contended cont that the plaintiff could be called upon to demonstrate availability of funds only upon a direction of the court. It is submitted that therefore, the sole ground of the learned Courts below for non-suiting suiting the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintif plaintifff had failed to prove possession of balance sale consideration, is not made out.
4. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants.
5. I have heard learned arned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in great detail.
6. I find no merit in the sole submission made on behalf of the appellants. The above contention of the plaintiff is based on a misreading reading of the above said judgments. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent and most recent judgment in "R. Shama Naik Vs. G. Srinivasiah" Law Finder Doc ID # 2670489 decided on 28.11.2024, has 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 21:58:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042820 Page 4 of 6 categorically held that readiness and willingness is to be proven from; a) availability of funds; b) presence marked in the Tehsil. Relevant extract of the said judgment by Hon'ble 'ble Supreme Court is as follows:
"11. There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance.
12. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff."
7. The relevant findings indings as recorded in Para Paras 20 and 21 of the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed by the learned trial Court are as follows: -
"20. Thus, the moot question which has to be decided in the present suit is readiness and willingness of the parties. It is an admitted fact that defendants no. 1 and 2 further sold the suit property to defendants no. 3 and 4, who had further sold the same to defendant no. 5. The plaintiff no 2 Vikas stepped into the witness box as PW2 and was cross cross-examined examined at length who stated at one point of time that he is in possession of the suit property but thereafter he took somersault and stated that he is not in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs have only examined this witness to prove their readiness and willingness but he has contradicted himself with re regard gard to the possession of the suit land. Also, there is nothing on the file to show that the plaintiffs had balance sale consideration on the date fixed for getting the sale deed executed and it is only the verbal 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 21:58:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042820 Page 5 of 6 assertions. The document Ex. P10 is the ap application plication given by the plaintiffs in which they had admitted that the possession of the said property was not given to them. The document Ex. P10 itself shows that the sale deed could not be executed as some dispute arose between the parties Merely getting an attendance marked in the office of Sub Sub-Registrar Registrar does not prove the readiness and willingness as the same has to be supported by other evidence also and the oral evidence of the plaintiffs goes against them and does not support their case.
21. Also, the defendants no. 1 and 2 have pleaded that they were in need of money and hence had sold the said land to the plaintiffs but the sale deed was not executed and hence they sold the land further to defendants no. 3 and 4, who further sold the same to defendant dant no. 5. The plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2 are local and interested in the suit property being buyers and sellers but still the plaintiff never filed any suit nor approached any forum when the suit property was sold by defendants no. 1 and 2 to defendants no. 3 and 4 and thereafter, they further sold the same to defendant no. 5. This very conduct of the plaintiffs goes against them as they cannot be mere spectators of the sale of the land to someone else.
8. In view of the above undisputed an andd uncontroverted findings the present appeal is dismissed. facts and findings,
9. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
28.03.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 21:58:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042820 Page 6 of 6 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-04-2025 21:58:08 :::