Partly allowed

Hari Ram v. Shashi Jain

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2009RSA/3197/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against decreed specific performance and recovery of earnest money, the High Court held that while the lower courts correctly awarded 12% interest up to the decree date, future interest from the decree date must be limited to 6% per annum under Section 34 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The judgments and decrees of the Courts below modified to grant future interest only at 6% per annum from the date of the decree.

Hari Ram Vs Shashi Jain — Money Laundering | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

RSA No. 3197 of 2005

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A. No. 3197 of 2005 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009

¶5

Hari Ram son of Shri Waryama Ram son of Sh. Babu Ram, r/o Ward No. 3, Balachaur, District Nawanshahr.

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shashi Jain wife of Sh. Dharamvir Jain son of Sohan Lal r/o Ward No. 7, near Police Station, Balachaur, District Nawanshahr.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER

¶11

Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

SHAM SUNDER, J.

¶14

¶15

This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 23.04.2003, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery with the interest @ 12% per annum, and the judgement and decree dated 09.05.2005, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

¶16

An agreement to sell dated 26.06.98, was executed by the

¶17

RSA No. 3197 of 2005

¶18

¶19

defendant, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land, in dispute. The sale deed was to be executed and got registered on or before 27.12.99. It was agreed by the defendant/appellant that, in case, he failed to execute the sale deed, he shall make himself liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. It was stated that the plaintiff/respondent, had always been ready and willing to perform her own part of the agreement to sell dated 26.06.98, and, in this regard, she got her presence marked, on the stipulated day, in the Tehsil Complex, Balachaur, and got attested her affidavit, but the defendant/appellant, did not turn up. The defendant, was many a time asked, to perform his own part of the contract, but to no avail. On his final refusal, to perform his own part of the contract, left with no other alternative, a suit for specific performance, and in the alternative for recovery, was filed.

¶20

The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff, was estopped, by her own act conduct, and acquiescence, from filing the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. It was stated that the agreement to sell being vague, indefinite, and uncertain, was not enforceable at law. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

¶21

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

¶22

struck:-

¶23

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 26.06.1998? OPP

¶24

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of consequent, for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- as prayed for? OPP

¶25

(iii) Whether the agreement in question is vague, indefinite and not enforceable? OPD

¶26

RSA No. 3197 of 2005

¶27

¶28

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her act and conduct? OPD

¶29

(v) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

¶30

(vi) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

¶31

(vii) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD

¶32

(viii) Whether the plaintiff is a money lender? OPD

¶33

(ix) Relief.

¶34

After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, for recovery with interest.

¶35

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar, vide judgement and decree dated 09.05.2005.

¶36

Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant.

¶37

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully.

¶38

The following substantial question of law arises, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:-

¶39

Whether the findings of the Courts below, that the plaintiff/respondent, was entitled to future interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of decree, until the realization of amount, are perverse, being contrary to the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

¶40

The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, submitted that the future interest awarded by the Courts below @ 12% per annum, was

¶41

RSA No. 3197 of 2005

¶42

¶43

contrary to the provision of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the future interest, could not be granted at the rate higher than 6% per annum, on the principal amount. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, to this extent, being illegal, were liable to be modified.

¶44

On the other hand, the Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, did not dispute, that the future interest could only be granted @ 6% per annum, on the principal amount, as per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and not @ 12% per annum.

¶45

The plaintiff/respondent, filed a suit for specific performance, and in the alternative, for recovery of the earnest money with interest. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent, for recovery of earnest money with interest @ 12% per annum, was decreed. No doubt, the amount of earnest money, was withheld improperly by the defendant/appellant, for a long period, and had he paid the same, in time, the plaintiff would have invested the same, in some business, and thereby, earned interest thereon. The Courts below, were right, in granting interest at the reasonable rate of 12% per annum, from the date of execution of the agreement, till the passing of the decree. However, as per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, future interest, i.e. from the date of passing the decree, until the realization of amount, could only be granted @ 6% per annum, on the principal amount, as the transaction, between the parties, was not commercial. The Courts below, thus, illegally held, that the plaintiff/respondent, was entitled to future interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of passing the decree, until the realization of the amount. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, to this extent, being illegal, are liable to be set aside, by modifying the same. The substantial question of law, depicted above, is answered, in favour of the

RSA No. 3197 of 2005

defendant/appellant.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are modified, in the manner, that the plaintiff/respondent, shall be entitled to future interest i.e. from the date of passing the decree, until the realization of amount, on the principal amount @ 6% per annum, instead of 12% per annum awarded by

¶50

the Courts below.

¶51

04.08.2009 Amodh

¶52

(SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE

Hari Ram v. Shashi Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram v. Shashi Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Krishan and Ors. Vs Manbhari and Ors.

Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs Tasvir Singh & Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Vs Sohan Lal

Darshan Singh Vs Inder Singh

Avtar Singh Vs Gurdial Singh