The High Court dismissed an appeal against a judgment refusing specific performance. Upholding the first appellate court, the judge held that no substantial question of law arose since the lower court correctly found the agreement unexecuted based on evidence and strained party relations.
The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 1038 of 2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1038 of 2005 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009
Avtar Singh s/o Santokh Singh s/o Ishar Singh, r/o village Denowal Kalan, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
... Appellant
Versus
Gurdial Singh s/o Nirmal Singh s/o Ishar Singh, r/o village Denowal Kalan, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, at present r/o village Birampur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Ms. Shashi Ghuman, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the respondent.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 24.03.2004, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, it accepted the appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 07.11.2001, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, for specific performance.
RSA No. 1038 of 2005
2
04.04.1996, and received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 80,000/- at that time. The defendant/respondent also agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 22.08.1997, and, in case of breach of the terms and conditions thereof, he was to return double the amount of earnest money towards damages. The plaintiff/appellant was also put in possession of the land, at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff/appellant, allegedly spent huge amount in making improvements of the land, in dispute. The plaintiff/appellant, had been asking the defendant/respondent, to execute the sale deed, but he had been putting him off, on one pretext or the other. The defendant/respondent, is, in fact, the real uncle of the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff remained ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant breached the same. On the final refusal of the defendant to execute and get registered the sale deed, left with no alternative, a suit for specific performance, was filed.
RSA No. 1038 of 2005
3
fact, the parties were not on speaking terms. It was further stated that the defendant, was attacked by the plaintiff, Darshan Singh, and Harvel Singh, on 20.01.1997, and remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Garhshankar. It was further stated that the defendant also filed a complaint before the Police authorities, in this regard. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
struck:-
RSA No. 1038 of 2005
4
RSA No. 1038 of 2005
5
Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and
others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, that since, as per the agreement to sell, the entire amount of sale consideration, was allegedly paid, then why the sale deed, on the same date, was not got executed; that there was a previous agreement, which was allegedly entered into, between the parties 10-12 days, before the present agreement to sell, in respect of the same land, for a sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, and then what was the necessity of executing another agreement dated 04.04.1996; that the agreement to sell, was not scribed by a regular Deed Writer, despite availability; that Darshan Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, to the agreement to sell, was accused, with the plaintiff/appellant, in a criminal case, for causing injuries, on the person of the defendant/respondent, as admitted by the plaintiff/appellant himself; that on account of this reason, there were strained relations, between the parties, and, as such, it was not at all probable for the defendant/respondent, to execute the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiff/appellant; and that, no legal and valid agreement to sell, was executed, by the defendant/respondent, in favour of the plaintiff/appellant, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer
RSA No. 1038 of 2005
6
from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
(SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE
04.08.2009 Amodh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of the first Appellate Court regarding non-execution of the agreement to sell.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar PillaiReferred¶40
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533 · Who else cites this
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik SinghReferred¶40
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270 · Who else cites this
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. DasappaReferred¶40
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228 · Who else cites this
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and othersReferred¶40
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72 · Who else cites this
Avtar Singh s/o Santokh Singh
Gurdial Singh s/o Nirmal Singh
Sham Sunder
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
