Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Prem Harjit Singh & Another vs Nirmal Harjit Singh on 23 August, 2012

Paramjit Kaur And Another vs Amandeep Singh And Others on 21 May, 2018

On a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, both the Courts concurrently concluded that defendant No.1 (Prem 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 13:10:15 ::: RSA No.1193 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. 3 Singh) did execute the agreement to sell dated 10.01.1990 regarding the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. And also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money. It was also proved that in part performance of the agreement, the plaintiff was even put in possession of the suit property. Further, as the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, he was entitled to seek a decree for specific performance of the agreement. As regards the plea of defendant No.2 being a bona fide purchaser for consideration, it was held that post execution of the agreement dated 10.01.1990, and the plaintiff having been put in possession of the suit land, defendant No.1 was merely holding the suit property as trustee of the plaintiff. Thus, transfer of the site measuring 25-5/9 sq. yards out of the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 had no binding effect upon the rights of the plaintiff. And, though no separate issues were framed in the suit titled "Prem Singh v. Nirmal Singh", but from the evidence on record, and findings recorded as regard issues No.1, 2 & 8 in the other suit i.e. Case No.437/16.3.1991, it was established that Nirmal Singh was put in possession of the suit property, pursuant to the agreement dated 10.01.1990, and he had even raised construction. Thus, the claim of Prem Singh, in the suit filed by him, that he was the owner in possession of plot Nos.4 & 5 was vitiated. In so far as the plea that although plaintiff-Nirmal Singh deposed that agreement (Ex.P1) was got typed by PW3, but he was not aware as to who was typist, likewise even PW3 had stated that he did not remember the name of the Scribe, was also rejected, for the alleged discrepancies were inconsequential once the execution of the agreement (Ex.P1) was duly proved. In fact, least the defendant could do, to substantiate his defence, was to get his signatures appended upon the agreement compared with his 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2018 13:10:15 ::: RSA No.1193 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. 4 admitted signatures by examining an expert, but as no such evidence was led the minor discrepancies in the statements of the plaintiff and PW3 were of no consequence. The argument that no receipt was proved by the plaintiff to show that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- were given to the defendant by way of earnest money was equally erroneous, for the recitals in the agreement itself proved that the said amount was given by the plaintiff to defendant-Prem Singh. Undoubtedly, defendant No.1 examined six witnesses, but in the wake of the agreement (Ex.P1), which was duly proved, their testimonies paled into insignificance. Further, the plea that in the suit filed by Prem Singh, no separate issues were framed, was also rejected, for all what Prem Singh had claimed was that he was in possession of the plot in question, therefore, Nirmal Singh be injuncted from causing any interference in his peaceful possession, but all those questions were duly covered in the issues framed and dealt with in the suit filed by Nirmal Singh. No prejudice was shown to have been caused to the defendant No.1 either. On being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the appellants could not refer to anything on record to show if the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts were either contrary to the record or suffered from any material illegality.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Palli - Full Document
1