Dismissed

Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh v. Ranjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2012RSA/1043/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal against a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land was dismissed. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings that the agreement was duly proved and the plaintiff was ready and willing, finding no error in granting specific performance rather than alternate monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the decree for specific performance remained in full force.

Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.1043 of 2012(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1043 of 2012(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: March 05, 2012

¶6

Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh

.......Appellant

Versus

Ranjit Singh

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

CM No.2790-C of 2012

¶16

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 24 days in refiling the appeal and making the deficiency in the court fee good. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, prayer is allowed.

¶18

CM disposed of.

¶19

RSA 1043 of 2012

¶20

The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court

¶21

Plaintiff-Ranjit Singh filed a suit against defendant-Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 in respect of land measuring 16 kanals situated at village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Jaitu and District Faridkot. It was

¶22

RSA No.1043 of 2012(O&M)

¶23

¶24

pleaded that an agreement dated 22.6.2005 had been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant to sell 16 Kanals of land @ Rs.3 lacs per acre and an earnest money of Rs.4.50 lacs had been paid. The sale-deed in terms of the agreement was to be executed on or before 15.6.2007. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but on account of the defendant committing a breach, accordingly, the suit had been instituted.

¶25

The defendant contested the suit setting up a case of denial in the written statement. It was stated that he had never executed any agreement to sell and had not received the alleged earnest money. The agreement to sell was termed as forged and fabricated document.

¶26

Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

¶27

Whether defendant agreed to sell suit land in favour of the plaintiff and executed agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 and received earnest money? OPP

¶28

Whether plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?OPP

¶29

Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the suit land by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/-? OPP

¶30

Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

¶31

Whether agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 in question is forged and fabricated?OPD

¶32

Relief.

¶33

Upon having heard respective counsel for the parties and

¶34

¶35

RSA No.1043 of 2012(O&M)

¶36

¶37

having scanned the evidence led on record, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in his favour for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 in respect of land measuring 16 Kanals upon payment of balance consideration amount. The civil appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant has been dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 7.9.2011 thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶38

I have heard Mr.Vivek Salathia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that the Courts below have erred in returning findings in respect of the alleged agreement to sell to be duly proved inasmuch as it was only towards the loan transaction that certain blank papers had been signed, which had been converted into an agreement to sell. Learned counsel would further contend that it was the alternate relief that should have been granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent if at all and the grant of the main relief towards specific performance of the contract was highly inequitable.

¶40

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have minutely perused the judgment of the trial Court as also the first Appellate Court.

¶41

Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the jurisdiction to decree specific performance in relation to a contract undoubtedly is discretionary and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so, but such discretion of the Court is not to be exercised in an arbitrary manner but to be guided by judicial

¶42

RSA No.1043 of 2012(O&M)

¶43

¶44

principles. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below is that the agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 is duly proved in accordance with law. PW1-Kewal Krishan, the regular deed-writer had been examined and his deposition is contained in Exhibit PW1/A wherein he had categorically deposed regarding the execution of the agreement. The entry in the deed writer's register in respect of the agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 also stands proved as Exhibit P2. PW2-Gurbhagat Singh was the witness to the agreement and his testimony by way of affidavit, Exhibit PW2/A also proved the due execution of the agreement to sell, Exhibit P1 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land as also regarding payment of earnest money on 22.6.2005.

¶45

Even though, a stand had been taken by the defendant in the written statement to the effect that such agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document but no evidence whatsoever has been led to corroborate such plea of fraud and forgery. Rather, in his oral testimony, the defendant changed his stand in terms of suggesting that the agreement may have been executed towards the security of loan transaction. Even such plea finds no corroboration by leading any worthwhile and cogent evidence.

¶46

The agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 having been held to be duly proved by both the Courts below, the plaintiff in addition thereto has also been held to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract all through. Apart from having paid an earnest money of Rs.4.50 lacs against the total sale-consideration of Rs.6 lacs, the suit for specific performance in respect of the agreement to sell in which the last date for execution of the sale-deed had been stipulated as 15.6.2007, was instituted without any delay

¶47

RSA No.1043 of 2012(O&M)

¶48

¶49

i.e. on 24.7.2007 itself. The plaintiff has also proved on record that on the stipulated date, he had been present in terms of getting an affidavit attested from the Executive Magistrate, Jaitu regarding his presence in the Tehsil Complex, Jaitu for purposes of execution of the sale-deed. Readiness and willingness was a factor which had to be inferred from the conduct of the party seeking specific performance of a contract. I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Courts below holding the plaintiff to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in relation to the agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005.

¶50

In the light of such concurrent findings wherein the agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 has been held to be duly proved in accordance with law and the plaintiff having been found to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, I find no basis that would warrant interference in the exercise of discretion by the Courts below in granting the main relief i.e. specific performance in respect of the agreement to sell dated 22.6.2005 as regards the suit property.

¶51

The present appeal must, accordingly, fail as it does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

¶52

Appeal dismissed.

¶53

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) March 05, 2012 JUDGE SRM

¶54

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh v. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurcharan Singh @ Buta Singh v. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buta Singh etc. Vs Surender Singh etc.

Buta Singh etc. Vs Kamla etc.

Buta Singh etc. Vs Manjit Singh etc.

Om Dhara and Ors. Vs Partap Singh and Ors.

Mall Singh Vs Gurbachan Singh

Ramesh Kumar Vs Darshan Singh