Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By this judgment, Regular Second Appeals No.1511 and 3022 of 2019, arising from a common judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned first appellate court while deciding a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell shall stand disposed of. The parties to these appeal are being referred to as per their status in the suit.

Regular Second Appeal No.1511 of 2019 has been filed by defendant no.1 to 5, whereas Regular Second Appeal No.3022 of 2019 has been filed by the plaintiff. It may be noted here that defendant no.6 before the trial court as well as before the first appellate court was proceeded 1 of 13 RSA No.1511 of 2019 and other connected case -2- against ex-parte. In memo of parties of the Regular Second Appeal No.1511 of 2019, defendant no.6 has been impleaded as proforma respondent. Defendant no.6 is stated to be lessee of the land.

(2) Whether after novation of contract, the terms of previous contract, which stand superseded by a new contract, can be made basis to deny the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell?

At the outset, it must be noticed that both the courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that there was an agreement to sell between the plaintiff and late Sh. Ram Sarup Sardana on 03.12.1999 followed by another agreement-cum-receipt dated 28.12.2000 under which the entire sale consideration was paid. The prospective seller/vendor late Sh. Ram Sarup Sardana, who died on 08.12.2001 was the uncle (father's brother) of the plaintiff-Col. Sudhir Kumar Sardana. Late Sh. Ram Sarup Sardana used to reside in Delhi, whereas the land is located in Village Dahima, Tehsil and District Hisar, where the plaintiff resides. Thus, 2 of 13 RSA No.1511 of 2019 and other connected case -3- the parties are closely related.

The plaintiff filed the suit on 21.12.2006. The plaintiff sought possession by pleading that he was forcibly dispossessed by defendant no.5 and 6 who are famous for land grabbing.

On completion of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 03.12.1999 and receipt-cum-agreement dated 28.12.2000 as alleged?OPP 3 of 13 RSA No.1511 of 2019 and other connected case -4-

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

5. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD

7. Whether the suit is bade for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

8. Relief."

In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Saroj Kumar, SHO, Shamsher Singh, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as PW2, the plaintiff himself appeared as PW3, PW4-Mukesh Kumar, PW5 Kuldeep Singh and PW6-M.L.Sardana, one of the witness of margin of the receipt dated 28.12.2000. Apart therefrom, voluminous record including the agreement to sell, agreement to adjust the loan advance, General Power of Attorney executed by late Sh. Ram Saroop Sardana in favour of Vrijya Nand Sardana and Tej Bahadur Sardana, receipt and agreement dated 28.12.2000, the copies of nehri girdawaris (the record maintained by canal authorities) 4 of 13 RSA No.1511 of 2019 and other connected case -5- and jamabandies for the years 1991-1992, 1996-1997 and 2001-2002 were produced.