Dismissed

Sarwan Singh v. Mithan Lal and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2009RSA/2588/1983

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this appeal against decrees upholding the dismissal of a specific performance suit. The Court affirmed lower courts' findings that the agreement to sell ancestral coparcenary land without legal necessity was invalid and the price term constituted an unconscious bargain unenforceable after 33 years.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; earlier decrees confirming dismissal of specific performance suit affirmed.

Sarwan Singh Vs Mithan Lal and Others — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

R.S.A. No. 2588 of 1983 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: March 20, 2009

¶4

Sarwan Singh (dead) through L.Rs.

¶5

.. Appellants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mithan Lal through L.Rs and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Kashmira Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J

¶12

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants (herein referred as the appellants) against the judgment dated 20.5.1981 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Bassi dismissing the suit of the appellants and granting alternative relief by passing a decree for recovery of Rs.5000/- in favour of the plaintiffsappellants and against the respondents-defendants (herein referred as the respondents).

¶13

The appellants had preferred a suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 8.9.1975, on the allegations that Mithan Lal (now deceased) defendant No.1 was the owner of the property as fully described in the head note of the plaint and he agreed to sell the same for a sum of Rs.12,200/- per acre in favour of the appellant and received a sum of Rs.5000/- as an earnest money from him. At the time of execution of the agreement in question, it was further stipulated between the parties that the sale deed would be executed within 25 days after the decision of the civil

¶14

R.S.A. No. 2588 of 1983

¶15

-2-

¶16

¶17

suit and balance amount would be paid at the time of attestation of the sale deed. The stamp and registration expenses were to be incurred by the appellant. In case of default, the respondent was to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- i.e. double the amount of the earnest money.

¶18

Having failed to perform the agreement, the present suit was filed. The suit was contested by Ramji Dass and others (L.Rs. of Mithan Ram), denying the agreement and receipt of Rs.5000/- allegedly on account of an earnest money. It was further pleaded that the suit land was coparcenary property qua the male descendants of Ramji Dass and there was no legal necessity or any pressure on the estate that could justify the sale in favour of the appellants.

¶19

On trial, it was observed that the agreement was valid and there was no legal necessity to sell the property, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, however, it passed a decree for a sum of Rs.5000/- against the defendants-respondents as an alternative relief.

¶20

The said judgment dated 20.5.1981 was challenged, in appeal which also met the same fate.

¶21

The substantial question of law which could be culled out from the impugned judgment and the grounds of appeal is that “even if agreement to sell is proved, even then such a huge property of 57 kanals being ancestral coparcenary could be sold without legal necessity?”

¶22

It is duly established on the record that the suit property was ancestral coparcenary and joint Hindu property. The judgment Ex.D-5 dated 27.10.1978 which had attained the finality also transpires that the suit property was ancestral coparcenary joint Hindu property.

¶23

R.S.A. No. 2588 of 1983

¶24

-3-

¶25

¶26

In such situation, the Apex Court in a judgment delivered in the case of Reserve Bank of India and another vs. Ramkrishna Govind Morey, 1976 (1) SCC 803 observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with the order passed by the trial court in its discretion which was affirmed by the lower appellate court.

¶27

Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that the trial court as well as the Lower Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. No such illegality could be detected as to differ with the said findings. No legal necessity has been established on the record which could entail validity of the agreement. Even otherwise, the sale of land @ Rs.12200/- per acre appears to be unconscious bargain and such agreement being against the principles of equity should not be acted upon after 33 years.

¶28

Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.

¶29

March 20, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge

Sarwan Singh v. Mithan Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarwan Singh v. Mithan Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Raj etc. Vs Mahant Tarsem Dass

Vinod Kumar Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Bhagwan Dass Vs Surinder Kumar

Faridabad Complex Admn. Vs Bhika Ram & Ors.

Happy & Anr. Vs Ishwar Chand & Ors.

Polu Ram & Anr. Vs Harphool Singh & Ors.