Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar Narang vs Paramjeet Singh on 5 November, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Regular Second Appeal No. 4677 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 4677 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision : November 05, 2012
Satish Kumar Narang
....Appellant
versus
Paramjeet Singh
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Pankaj Shukla, Advocate, for the appellant
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
CM No. 13022.C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
RSA No. 4677 of 2012 Defendant Satish Kumar Narang having lost in both the courts below has filed this second appeal.
Respondent/plaintiff Paramjit Singh filed suit against defendant/appellant for possession of the suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.1.2002 and also claimed Regular Second Appeal No. 4677 of 2012 (O&M) -2- permanent injunction.
Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for ` 6 lacs and received ` 3 lacs as earnest money and executed agreement dated 11.1.2002. The sale deed was to be executed upto 12.7.2002. Accordingly, after intimating the defendant, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar on 12.7.2002 with requisite amount for getting sale deed executed in terms of the agreement but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement whereas the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. The defendant alleged that he used to borrow money from the plaintiff who is money lender. The plaintiff used to obtain signatures of defendant on blank cheques and blank stamp papers. Earlier also the plaintiff had prepared false and frivolous agreement in respect of some other property and used the same for pressurizing the defendant to repay the loan amount with higher rate of interest than the agreed rate. The plaintiff has also filed false and frivolous complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) against the defendant, which was pending.
The defendant also pleaded that he convened Panchayat to resolve the dispute which was amicably settled vide compromise dated 12.10.2002 according to which the defendant paid ` 4 lacs to the plaintiff in Regular Second Appeal No. 4677 of 2012 (O&M) -3- full and final settlement of his claim.
Both the courts below have decreed suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this second appeal.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove his case. He has examined Gopal Dass, Deed Writer, scribe of the impugned agreement and Ashok Kumar PW4, an attesting witness of the agreement, besides the plaintiff himself appearing in the witness box. All these witnesses have stated according to the plaintiff's version. The plaintiff also examined Stamp Vendor, Narender Kumar, PW6 from whom stamp for impugned agreement was purchased. He has also supported the plaintiff's case.
On the other hand, the defendant himself appeared as DW1 and examined Rajesh Kumar DW2. Both of them broadly stated according to the defendant's version.
Statements of plaintiff and scribe as well as attesting witness of the agreement are sufficient to prove due execution of the agreement by the defendant who has also admitted his signatures thereon. The defendant has produced copy of alleged compromise dated 10.7.2002. However, the same has not been duly proved. Permission for leading secondary evidence of the compromise was not taken. Original compromise was not produced in evidence. Moreover, in complaint under section 138 of the Act, the said Regular Second Appeal No. 4677 of 2012 (O&M) -4- compromise was sent to India Security Press, Nasik for determining the age of the revenue stamp affixed on the said document. The Press reported that the revenue receipt in question was issued by the Press on 26.5.2004 and released for the public on 22.6.2004. Consequently, affixation of the said revenue receipt on compromise dated 10.7.2002 (or 12.10.2002 ?) would manifestly establish that the said compromise has been fabricated by the defendant.
Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned agreement is unregistered and therefore, the same cannot be specifically enforced. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Haryana, 2011-LAWS (SC)-10-2 and judgment of Allahabad High Court in Subhash Verma versus Narendra Kumar and others, 2012(116) RD 737. It was also argued that on substantial question of law, this Court may interfere even in second appeal as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boodireddy Chandraiah versus Arigela Laxmi, 2007-LAWS(SC)-9-101.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same are completely misconceived and meritless. There is no dispute with the legal preposition that in exercise of power under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court in second appeal can interfere on substantial Regular Second Appeal No. 4677 of 2012 (O&M) -5- questions of law. However, in the instant case, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. The plea raised by counsel for the defendant/appellant relating to compulsory registration of the agreement which is, however, unregistered, is completely frivolous and meritless. In the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court merely held that unregistered agreement or general power of attorney or Will does not amount to transfer or sale of property because sale can be completed only by way of registered deed. However, it was not laid down in the aforesaid judgment that unregistered agreement cannot be enforced. In the case of Subhash Verma (supra), Allahabad High Court held that in view of amendment in Uttar Pradesh, agreement to sell immovable property requires compulsory registration. However, there is no such amendment of Registration Act applicable in Haryana requiring compulsory registration of every agreement to sell immovable property. Thus, judgment in the case of Subhash Verma (supra) is also not applicable to the instant case. On the contrary, according to section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, an agreement by which possession of immovable property is delivered to the prospective vendee, requires registration to claim protection under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In the instant case, possession of the suit property was not delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff under the impugned Regular Second Appeal No. 4677 of 2012 (O&M) -6- agreement. Consequently, under section 17(1A) of the Registration Act also, the impugned agreement did not require compulsory registration.
For the reasons aforesaid, suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed by the courts below. There is no infirmity much less perversity or illegality in concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below to decree suit of the plaintiff. The said finding is also not shown to be based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. On the contrary, the defendant relied on forged and fabricated document of alleged compromise. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L.N. Mittal )
November 05, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'