Dismissed

Harphul Chand v. Parveen Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2014RSA/1295/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal concerning specific performance of an agreement to sell sold. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Courts below correctly found the plaintiff ready and willing based on evidence and the filing of the suit in 2008.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of the lower courts upholding specific performance was affirmed.

Harphul Chand Vs Parveen Kumar — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.1295 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1295 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.12.2014

Harphul Chand

... Appellant

Vs.

Parveen Kumar

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J (ORAL)

¶13

Defendant-appellant is in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings rendered by the trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.08.2007 was decreed.

¶14

The defendant-appellant has admitted the execution of the agreement to sell Ex.P1. Both the Courts below after examining the oral and documentary evidence on record found that the plaintiffrespondent has complied with the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 i.e. readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement and the defendant-appellant failed to perform his part.

¶15

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.12 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

RSA No.1295 of 2012 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

Sh. Harpreet S.Rakhra, Advocate appearing on behalf of

¶19

the appellant submitted that the defendant-appellant though was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and marked his presence before the Sub Registrar, Gidderbaha, on the date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed on 30.11.2007. He further submitted that plaintiff-respondent appeared after the defendantappellant marked his presence before the Sub Registrar, Gidderbaha. He has pointed to paragraph No.8 of an affidavit of plaintiff-respondent which has been annexed at Annexure A-8 wherein, it has been mentioned that defendant-appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the agreement and as he did not vacate the house. He further submitted that this condition was not incorporated/existed in agreement to sell and therefore, the plaintiffrespondent cannot be said to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

¶20

Having given due regard to the aforementioned arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact and law which are based on the examination of oral and documentary evidence. It is evident from the perusal of judgments of the Courts below, plaintiff-respondent performed his part of the agreement to sell dated 02.08.2007 as the date of execution and registration of the sale deed was 30.11.2007 and suit for specific

¶21

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.12 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶22

RSA No.1295 of 2012 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

performance was filed on 27.02.2008, filing of suit in the year 2008 itself proved the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff-respondent. On the contrary, no evidence has been lead by the appellantdefendant to prove otherwise.

¶25

In view of the aforementioned observations, there is no merit in the submissions made in this regard by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

No substantial question of law arises for determination before this Court.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶29

December 04, 2014 savita

¶30

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.12 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Harphul Chand v. Parveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harphul Chand v. Parveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Kaur and Anr. Vs Harnek Singh and Anr.

Jitender Jhangu Vs Sukhbir Singh and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Aarti &Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Ravinder Baweja

M/S Jat Bhatta Company Vs Krishana Devi and Ors.

Lilu Ram and Others Vs Ram Niwas and Others