The High Court dismissed the second appeal of a land owner alleging an agreement of sale did not exist. The court held specific performance was rightly decreed against her due to the admission of signatures and receipt of earnest money.
The appeal was dismissed; the decree for specific performance in favor of the respondent remains in force.
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.
-1-
Regular Second Appeal No. 1301 of 2011 (O&M).
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Date of Decision: March 17, 2011.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1301 of 2011 (O&M).
Smt. Vidya Devi ... Appellant
VERSUS
Ravinder Saini ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr.Abhishek Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Civil Misc. No.3633-C of 2011.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Regular Second Appeal No.1301 of 2011 (O&M).
The defendant-appellant is in second appeal aggrieved
-2-
Regular Second Appeal No. 1301 of 2011 (O&M).
against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.8.2006 was decreed.
Defendant-appellant Smt. Vidya Devi, being owner of the suit land measuring 14 Marlas, detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, entered into an agreement of sale of the said land in favour of plaintiff-respondent Ravinder Saini vide agreement of sale dated 19.8.2006 at the rate of Rs.1550/- per square yard. Rs.50,000/- were paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant as earnest money. The balance sale consideration i.e Rs.6,06,425/-was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 18.11.2006 at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. However, as 18.11.2006 and 19.11.2006 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday and the defendant-appellant was avoiding the registration of the sale deed, there was no option for the plaintiff-respondent to get his presence marked before the Sub Registrar, Jhajjar, on 17.11.2006 and 20.11.2006, respectively, which he did so. The defendant-appellant failed to perform her part of the agreement despite legal notice having been issued to her by the plaintiffrespondent through their counsel. Hence this suit was filed by the plaintiff.
The defendant-appellant, in the written statement filed by her, stated that as she was in need of money, she had availed
-3-
Regular Second Appeal No. 1301 of 2011 (O&M).
a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent. At the time of taking loan from the plaintiff-respondent, according to the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent had got her (defendant-appellant's) signatures and thumb impressions on various papers i.e proformas and blank papers. The defendant-appellant denied having entered into any agreement to sell regarding the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording their evidence and hearing their learned counsel, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent. The appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. As noticed above, the defendant-appellant did not dispute her signatures and thumb impression on the agreement to sell (Exhibit P.W.1/2), but her claim was that Rs.50,000/- were not received by her as earnest money in respect of the sale of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by means of the said agreement, but this amount had been availed by her as loan from the plaintiff-respondent. However, the defendant-appellant could not substantiate her this plea by leading any cogent
-4-
Regular Second Appeal No. 1301 of 2011 (O&M).
evidence on record. Satyavir Singh, Advocate (P.W.3) had drafted the agreement (Exhibit P.W.1/2) and he corroborated the statements of plaintiff Ravinder Saini (P.W.1) and Hari Kishan, attesting witness (P.W.2) in respect of the execution of the said agreement by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Even Manju (D.W.2), who is none else than the daughter of the defendantappellant, in her cross-examination admitted the signatures of her mother i.e defendant-appellant on the agreement to sell Exhibit P.W.1/2. Manju (D.W.2) also admitted that a sum of Rs.50,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of document Exhibit P.W.1/2. No doubt, Vidya Devi, defendant-appellant (D.W.1), in her cross-examination stated that she was illiterate, but the agreement to sell Exhibit P.W.1/2 bears her signatures. On the other hand, the plaintiff-respondent Ravinder Saini (P.W.1) and the witnesses produced by him i.e Hari Kishan, attesting witness of the agreement (P.W.2) and Satyavir Singh, Advocate (P.W.3), who had drafted the agreement (Exhibit P.W.1/2) have stated, in certain terms, that the defendant-appellant had signed the agreement after admitting its contents to be correct. Once the execution of agreement of sale in respect of the suit land is proved on record and receipt of earnest money of Rs.50000/-by the defendant is also proved on record, the plaintiff-respondent has got a right to specific performance of the said agreement. The evidence on record proves that the plaintiff-respondent had been ready and willing to perform his part
-5-
Regular Second Appeal No. 1301 of 2011 (O&M).
of the agreement. To be precise, the filing of the instant suit by itself shows that the plaintiff-respondent has always been and is still willing to perform his part of the agreement.
In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
( MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE
March 17,2011. ak
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal disclosing no substantial question of law should be dismissed.
Whether the finding that the appellant executed the agreement and received the earnest money is below the realm of judicial interference.
Smt. Vidya Devi
Ravinder Saini
MOHINDER PAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
