Dismissed

Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Maha Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2013RSA/1418/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the second appeal against the decree for specific performance of a sale agreement, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding findings that the defendants were not bona fide purchasers due to the hasty execution of multiple sale deeds and unexplained delays.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no interference in the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2010.

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs Maha Singh and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2014.01.02 12:56I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

RSA No.1418 of 2011(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1418 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 05.12.2013

¶5

Kanwar Singh and Ors.

....Appellants

Versus

Maha Singh and Ors.

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

JASWANT SINGH, J

¶13

LRs of defendant No.2-Shiv Narayan (since deceased) are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1/Maha Singh has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) , Gurgaon and the findings affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.

¶14

Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract on the basis of sale agreement dated 17.4.1995 in respect of suit land executed by defendant No.2/Ram Chander (since deceased) and now represented by his LR-respondent No.9. It transpires that defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte and defendant No.2 opposed the civil suit but the same was decreed by the learned

¶15

#2#

¶16

RSA No.1418 of 2011(O&M)

¶17

trial Court and the findings whereof affirmed in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court, hence the present second regular second appeal.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paper book with his able assistance. I find no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.

¶19

A perusal of paper book reveals that as per agreement dated 17.4.1995, the last date for bargain was fixed as 10.8.1995, however, the same could not be materialized. A legal notice dated 16.8.1995 is also alleged to have been issued to said Ram Chander as plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but said Ram Chander sold the suit land to defendant No.2-Shiv Narain by way of three different sale deeds of the even date i.e 21.8.1995 and that led to filing of the civil suit on 22.8.1995 itself.

¶20

Plaintiff has duly proved that he had paid the earnest money of Rs.1,20,000/- on 17.4.1995 in cash at the time of execution of agreement and thereafter further paid an amount of Rs.88,000/- on 27.4.1995 and still further paid an amount of Rs.22,750/- for purchase of stamp paper for execution of the sale deed in favour of one Mahabir Singh son of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 purchased stamp paper on 8.5.1995 but thereafter he never turned up, rather refused to accept the sale deed despite repeated requests. Income tax clearance certificate was also required and agreed to be obtained by the vendor but he defaulted on that count also and instead executed the sale deed

¶21

in favour of third party i.e defendant No.2-Shiv Narain, who is the

¶22

#3#

¶23

RSA No.1418 of 2011(O&M)

¶24

predecessor in interest of the appellants.

¶25

There is no dispute regarding the payments made by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 for materializing the sale deed as well as readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. Rather, it has been admitted by respondent No.9-Balwan being LR of defendant No.1 that the alleged payments were received by said Ram Chander and reference in this regard can be made to paragraph no.25 of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

¶26

The only point urged on behalf of the appellant is that their predecessor-in-interest was a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for value without any notice of the alleged sale agreement executed by defendant No.1.

¶27

A perusal of paper book reveals that the learned trial Court framed issue No.8 to that effect and came to the conclusion that predecessor-in-interest of the appellant cannot be termed as a bonafide purchaser in view of the fact that all three sale deeds have been executed and registered in utter haste and the alleged sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- is stated to have been made without seeking any permission from the Income Tax Authority. Moreover, there is no sale agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, rather in one go the entire payment is alleged to have been made on 16.8.1995 and no receipt to that effect has been produced on behalf of the appellants.

¶28

This court is fully in agreement with the findings recorded

¶29

RSA No.1418 of 2011(O&M)

¶30

#4#

¶31

by both the courts below that the appellants cannot be held to be bonafide purchaser in view of the admitted factual position regarding the payment of sale consideration on different occasions as well as in view of the fact that the last date for bargain was fixed as 10.8.1995 and the present suit was filed without any delay on 22.8.1995 itself and meanwhile, three different sale deeds have been executed in quite haste in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on 21.8.1995 by defendant No.1-Ram Chander without any justification or plausible explanation to attract the plea of bonafide purchaser.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid discussion, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by both the learned courts below that defendant No.2-Shiv Narain/predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was not a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for value without any notice of the sale agreement dated 17.4.1995.

¶33

No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal warranting interference by this Court.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

December 05, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Maha Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Maha Singh 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

Raju Sarin Vs Subhash Chander Madhok

Amita @ Rachna Sharma Vs Sudhir Kumar

Pooja Vs Devender Singh

Harbinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Harjinder Singh

Sanju Vs Ramesh Kumar

Veerpal Kaur Vs Balwinder Pal