Defendant-appellant challenging the first Appellate Court's decision to dismiss a suit for injunction but decree recovery of Rs.30,000/- as damages against him for breaching a construction agreement. The High Court dismissed the second appeal.
Second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.4252 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4252 of 2009
Date of Decision: January 23, 2012
Balbir Singh Mistri
.......Appellant
Versus
Mahender Singh and another
.......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.JP Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Vipin Yadav, Advocate for the respondents.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.
RSA No.4252 of 2009
2
presence of two witnesses, namely, Ram Sarup and Ram Avtar. Still further, it was pleaded that as per a foot note written in the Bahi , it was also agreed that upon the construction having been raised upto plinth level, the level of the land of the plot would be completed by defendant-Balbir Singh by putting in earth and for that, a payment will be made by the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.800/-. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff had already spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- for purposes of construction of boundary wall upto 6' height and that the plaintiff was ready to pay a sum of Rs.800/to the defendant to have the ground levelled but the defendant has not fulfilled such condition in terms of the agreement dated 22.7.1991 and he had been prevented from constructing the shops on the suit land. Accordingly, the defendant be directed to immediately level the ground so that the further construction can be effected. By way of amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff also challenged a sale-deed dated 1.7.1994 which had been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 during the pendency of the suit. Still further, an alternative relief was claimed for a sum of Rs.30,000/- as damages.
RSA No.4252 of 2009
3
pleaded that upon the plaintiff having failed to adhere to the terms of the agreement, the plot had been sold to defendant No.2 through a registered sale-deed.
RSA No.4252 of 2009
4
appellant for which the plaintiff-respondent was liable to pay Rs.800/- only. The plaintiff-respondent testified that he had completed such construction on 12.8.1991 and was willing to pay the requisite amount of Rs.800/-, but Balbir Singh, defendant-appellant had resiled from his part of the agreement. PW3 Ram Sarup corroborated the version of the plaintiffrespondent by testifying that in the year 1991, Balbir Singh had called him and had informed that the plaintiff was to construct the shops over the plot and had referred to the agreement Exhibit PW1/A in regard thereto. He further stated that he had signed the same as a witness. He further deposed that the writing was done by Bishamber Dayal and the same had been read over and the contents had been explained to the parties and it was thereupon that both the parties had appended their signatures thereto. The testimony of PW4-Mahabir would also be relevant wherein he stated that he had raised construction on the suit land at the instance of Mahender Singh i.e. plaintiffrespondent on the land of Balbir, defendant-appellant. He has also stated that the labour charges were received by him. From the testimony of DW4 and DW6, it would be clear that respondent No.2 had purchased the land in question from Balbir, defendant-appellant vide sale-deed dated 1.7.1994. From the due appreciation of the evidence on record, the first Appellate Court has concluded that in terms of the agreement dated 22.7.1991, which fact was admitted by the defendant-appellant, certain construction had been effected upon the suit land at the hands of the plaintiff-respondent. However, defendant-appellant Balbir Singh had resiled from the performance of his part of agreement in terms of the condition wherein the level of the plot must be effected, upon payment of Rs.800/- at the hands of the plaintiff. Accordingly, in the light of fact that the first Appellate Court
RSA No.4252 of 2009
5
having noticed that defendant No.2 had become a bonafide purchaser, the plaintiff-respondent has been held entitled to a sum of money i.e. Rs.30,000/- towards the amount spent on construction, as well as damages, as per agreement dated 22.7.1991.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JANUARY 23, 2012 JUDGE SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal discloses a question of law substantial enough to interfere with the conclusion of the first Appellate Court regarding the breach of agreement and recovery of money.
Whether the High Court could interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC in the present second appeal where no scope for such interference existed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balbir Singh Mistri
Mahender Singh
One another
Tejendar Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
