Dismissed

(O&M) Mohinder Singh v. Jee Sukhram

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jan 2014RSA/1076/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The appeal challenged the appellate court's decree, which seemingly relied on an oral concession by the respondent's counsel to grant damages instead of specific performance, curative of the lower trial court's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed, upholding the appellate court's decree for recovery of `3,000/-.

(O&M) Mohinder Singh Vs Jee Sukhram — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No. 1076 of 1986

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

*********

¶5

RSA No. 1076 of 1986 Date of decision : 15.1.2014

¶6

Mohinder Singh ........Appellant Vs. Jesukh Ram and others ......Respondents

¶7

RSA No. 1598 of 1986

¶8

Jesukh Ram ........Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mohinder Singh and others ......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh

¶12

Present:Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant (for the respondent in RSA No. 1598 of 1986) Mr. Anurag Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondents (for the appellant in RSA No. 1076 of 1986)

¶13

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

¶14

This order will dispose of 2 appeals bearing RSA No. 1076 and 1598 both of the year 1986 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are being taken from RSA No. 1076 of 1986.

¶15

Respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 27.2.1978, vide which the appellant agreed to sell 20 Kanals of land in his favour for an amount of 7750/- per acre. It was his case that 1500/-were paid as earnest money on the date of execution of the above agreement. Sale deed was to be executed on 23.6.1978. Despite request made on 23.6.1978, the appellant failed to execute the sale deed. It

¶16

Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-2-

¶18

RSA No. 1076 of 1986

¶19

was further stated that respondent No.1 appeared before the Sub Registrar at Ferozepur on 23.6.1978, however, the appellant failed to reach in the office of the Sub Registrar for execution of sale deed. It is further stated that the appellant along with his brother Iqbal Singh, illegally sold 41 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land to respondents No.2 to 4 on 8.6.1979.

¶20

The said transaction came to the notice of respondent No.1 on 5.5.1981. Thereafter, the suit was filed on 15.6.1981.

¶21

After getting respective replies of the respondents, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration :-

¶22

““1. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

¶23

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

¶24

Whether defendants No. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers of the land for valuable consideration on good faith? If so, its effect? OPD

¶25

Whether the agreement to sell dated 27.2.1978 stood cancelled as alleged in the preliminary objection No.4 of the written statement of defendant No. 1? OPD

¶26

Whether the order dated 17.10.1978 operates as a bar for the present suit under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC? OPD

¶27

Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties? OPD

¶28

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance to the agreement in question? OPP

¶29

Relief.

¶30

Parties led evidence and on appraisal thereof, the trial Court

¶31

dismissed his suit on 1.12.1983. Respondent No.1 went in appeal which was allowed. The appellant held guilty in not following terms and

¶32

Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

-3-

¶34

RSA No. 1076 of 1986

¶35

conditions of the agreement to sell dated 27.2.1978. However, instead of ordering specific performance of the agreement referred to above, the appellant was directed to return the amount of earnest money i.e. ` 1500/and further directed to pay equal amount as damages. Hence, this appeal.

¶36

It is vehemently contended by counsel for respondent No.1 that after coming to a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, it was incumbent upon the Court below to order specific performance of the agreement dated 27.2.1978. By not doing so, injustice has been done to respondent No. 1.

¶37

The above said prayer has been opposed by counsel for the appellant stating that the relief granting damages was given on a statement made by counsel for respondent No.1. The objection raised by the appellant appears to be correct. It is coming out from reading of the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 3.1.1986 that a statement was made by counsel for respondent No.1 that instead of specific performance, let damages be given to respondent No.1

¶38

Taking note of the statement, order was passed. Relevant portion of the order passed by the trial Court on 3.1.1986 reads thus :-

¶39

“As far as the question of specific performance of the agreement is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the land is under mortgage and as such the relief of specific performance is not the appropriate relief. He has therefore, prayed that he may be granted the alternative relief i.e. return of the earnest money of 1500/-and equal amount of 1500/-by way of damages as stipulated in the agreement Ex.P1. The appellant is entitled to this relief. As such the finding of the learned Sub Judge on Issue No. 7 are also reversed and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to the

¶40

Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

RSA No. 1076 of 1986

¶42

-4-

¶43

decree for payment of 3000/-( 1500/- as return of earnest money and 1500/-as stipulated damages). As a result the decree and judgment of the trial Court are set aside. The suit filed by Jesukh Ram appellant is decreed for recovery of 3000/-with proportionate costs throughout against respondent No.1 Mohinder Singh.”

¶44

On the basis of the statement made by respondent No.1, order

¶45

was passed. Once it is so, it is not open to respondent No.1 to challenge the same. No question of law has been framed.

¶46

Dismissed.

¶47

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶48

15.1.2014 Ashwani

¶49

Kumar Ashwani 2014.07.28 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Mohinder Singh v. Jee Sukhram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Mohinder Singh v. Jee Sukhram

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

(O&Msardara Singh Vs Gurcharan Singh

(O&M) Gurbachan Singh Vs Jagat Singh etc.

Subhash Chand Vs State of Hry. and Anr.

(O&M) Sumitra Devi Vs State of Haryana

Roop Ram Vs Om Parkash etc.

Dharam Pal Vs Om Parkash and Ors.