Dismissed

Daya Ram v. Ramavtar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012RSA/3852/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal in a second appeal concerning a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the agreement was proved and the plaintiffs were ready and willing, rejecting the claim of fraud.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law.

Daya Ram Vs Ramavtar and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.3852 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3852 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:16.02.2012

Daya Ram

......Appellant

Vs.

Ramavtar & others

...Respondents

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

¶11

Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

¶14

CM No.11525-C of 2010:

¶15

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking 133 days delay in filing the appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application, prayer is allowed . Delay of 133 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

RSA No.3852 of 2010:

¶18

The defendant/appellant is in second appeal before this Court. Plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants on the basis of agreement to sell dated 30.12.1996 by pleading that defendants were owners to the extent of 2/3^rd share in khasra No.20/16 measuring 1 kanal, 2 marlas (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land) situated in village Jainpur. It was pleaded that the defendants had

¶19

RSA No.3852 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶20

entered into an agreement to sell their 2/3^rd share for a sum of 1,14,200/and had received a sum of 95,600/- and had even delivered possession of the suit land towards part performance of the agreement to sell. The last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 03.02.1997. The plaintiffs stated that they were owners in possession of remaining 1/3^rd share of the suit land and that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Even, a notice dated 21.01.1997 has been issued by the plaintiffs and they had remained present before the Sub-Registrar on 03.02.1997 alongwith the balance sale consideration as also the payment for stamp and registration charges but since the defendants did not present themselves. Accordingly, the suit for specific performance had been filed.

¶21

The defendants filed a written statement setting up a case of complete denial. It was stated that the alleged agreement dated 30.12.1996 had never been entered into and it was a forged and fabricated document. Even the fact of having received the earnest money of ` 95,600/- was also denied.

¶22

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

¶23

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 03.12.1996 as prayed for and the alternative is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,14,000/with interest @ 18% P.A.? OPP

¶24

Whether the agreement in question is result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPD

¶25

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of actio to file the present suit? OPD

¶26

RSA No.3852 of 2010 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

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

¶29

Relief.

¶30

Having heard respective counsel for the parties and having scanned the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs for transfer of title of the suit property in terms of the agreement to sell, Ex.PW1/A dated 30.12.1996. The defendants/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2007 passed by the trial Court, preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgment dated 16.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Narnaul, the appeal of the defendants/appellants has been dismissed and the findings of the trial Court have been affirmed.

¶31

I have heard Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant at

¶32

length.

¶33

The agreement to sell dated 30.12.1996 has been held to be duly proved in accordance with law by both the Courts below. PW-1, Matadin, Numberdar, deposed that he had seen the disputed land and an agreement to sell has been entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants. He also deposed that a sum of 95,600/- has been paid towards earnest money out of total sale consideration of 1,14,200/-. PW-1 also testified that the agreement was scribed on 30.12.1996 and it had been read over and explained to the parties, who thereafter, affixed their signatures thereto. PW-2, Jeevan Ram Sanghi, who has also been examined, was testified in the same light. PW-3, Ram Kumar and PW-4, Bhagwana were the attesting witnesses, who were examined and have duly proved the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/A dated 30.12.1996. Even though, the defendants set up a plea that

¶34

RSA No.3852 of 2010 (O&M)

¶35

-4-

¶36

the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1996 being forged and fabricated but no evidence much less cogent evidence had been led towards the factum of their having been any fraud played upon them.

¶37

Even the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs/respondents has been held to be proved by both the Courts below. It may be noticed that out of the total sale consideration of 1,14,200/-, the payment of 95,600/- had already been made towards earnest money and it was only thereupon that the possession of the suit land i.e. 2/3^rd share of the defendants/appellants had been delivered to the plaintiffs/respondents. Ex.PW6/A is the notice, duly proved on record which was sent by the plaintiffs/respondents to the defendants/appellants for execution of sale deed. PW-7, Data Ram had also deposed that the plaintiffs/respondents had been present in the office of Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date i.e. 03.02.1997 alongwith the balance sale consideration. In the light of such findings, I find no infirmity in the Courts below granting the relief of specific performance in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1996. Learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate any misreading or misappreciation of evidence and has not been able to show any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below.

¶38

The instant regular second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.

¶39

Appeal dismissed .

¶40

February 16, 2012 harjeet

¶41

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶42

Note: Whether to be reported? No

Daya Ram v. Ramavtar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Ram v. Ramavtar and Ors.

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

Rambir Vs Mamta

Raj Kumar Vs Surinder Pal and Anr.

Het Ram Vs Murari Lal and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Dharambir and Others

Daya Ram Vs Ramavtar and Ors.

Preeto Devi & Anr. Vs Punni Devi & Anr.