Application of this court in defendant's second appeal challenging decree for recovery of earnest money. Courts below found agreement proved but granted alternative relief due to property description vagueness. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal and decree for recovery of earnest money were upheld, with no interference in the lower courts' findings.
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.2976 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2976 of 2008 Date of decision : 14-10-2010
Tarlochan Singh
.... Appellant
VERSUS
Amrik Singh
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.
This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question, a decree for recovery of the earnest money has been passed against him.
Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding that execution of the agreement in question stood duly proved but the alternative relief of recovery of earnest money was granted by the Courts below keeping in view the vagueness in the description of the property mentioned in the abovesaid agreement to sell in question.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued before
RSA No.2976 of 2008
-2-
this Court that once a finding was recorded by the Courts below that the agreement was vague, in that eventuality no decree for refund of earnest money could have been passed against the appellant.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has supported the finding of the Courts below and has argued that a concurrent finding has been recorded by both the Courts below and keeping in view the findings, no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC is warranted.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below.
The argument raised by counsel for the appellant is without any merit as the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that execution of agreement in question and receipt of earnest money stood proved and the findings regarding the execution of the agreement in question and receipt of the earnest money have not been challenged, thus, no fault can be found with the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby refund of the earnest money has been ordered. Moreover, grant of specific performance of an agreement is a discretionary relief and depends on various circumstances, which varies on the facts of each case.
No substantial question of law arises.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
14-10-2010 manju
3 issues framed by the court
Whether interference under Section 100 CPC is warranted when courts below found the agreement execution proved but granted specific performance was refused due to vague description of property.
Whether the grant of alternative relief of refund of earnest money against the appellant is sustainable when the agreement was found executed but lacked description.
Whether a substantial question of law arises that warrants interferance in the impugned judgment and decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tarlochan Singh
Amrik Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
