The single-judge High Court dismissed Ashok's appeal against the dismissal of his counter claim for specific performance. The court upheld lower courts' findings that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of an unregistered document and that no substantial question of law arose.
Appeal dismissed; counter claim for specific performance stands dismissed.
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. 1979 of 2014 (O&M)
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 1979 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 9.12.2015
Ashok
.. Appellant
versus
Ajit and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The appellant is before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, whereby the counter claim filed by him for specific performance of alleged agreement to sell dated 11.1.1970 was dismissed.
In the case in hand, respondents No.1 to 3 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction seeking restrain against the present appellant from carrying out any alteration or modification in the property in dispute. In the aforesaid suit, the appellant filed a counter claim seeking specific performance of alleged agreement to sell dated 11.1.1970. The counter claim was filed on 13.6.2006. Both the courts below finding no merit in the case set up by the appellant, dismissed the counter claim, despite the fact that respondents No.1 to 3 were ex-parte, as even the suit filed by them for injunction had been dismissed in default and it was only the counter claim filed by the appellant, which was adjudicated upon by the court below. Though the learned trial court opined that the counter claim filed seeking specific performance of alleged agreement to sell dated 11.1.1970 was time barred, however, the learned lower appellate court further opined that the appellant had not been able to prove the genuineness of the agreement to sell.
Though learned counsel for the appellant sought to refer the material placed on record by him to show that the witnesses to the SHARMILA 2015.12.15 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. Chandigarh
RSA No. 1979 of 2014 (O&M)
(2)
agreement to sell having been expired, their family members were produced in court, who identified their signatures, however, another fact, which cannot be lost sight off is that a perusal of the alleged agreement to sell dated 11.1.1970 shows that it was a sale deed, It mentions that the vendor is owner of the property, which has been sold by him to the vendee for a total sum of 3,500/-. Even possession had been handed over and none of the LRs or relative of the vendor will have any right in the property. It could not be disputed that transfer of an immovable property worth more than 100/is required to be registered. It is not in dispute that the alleged document dated 11.1.1970, is not registered. It is a simple writing on a plain paper. It is also not disputed that till such time respondents No.1 to 3 filed a suit for injunction, the appellant never thought of filing suit for specific performance, as even in the opinion of the appellant the alleged document was not an agreement to sell but a sale deed. It was only after respondents No. 1 to 3 filed suit for injunction that the counter claim was filed by the appellant claiming relief of specific performance.
In view of my aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
9.12.2015 sharmila
SHARMILA 2015.12.15 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the counter claim for specific performance of an alleged unregistered agreement to sell dated 1970, filed in 2006, was maintainable.
Whether the appellant could establish the genuineness of the alleged document despite it being an unregistered writing on plain paper.
Whether the claim was barred by limitation given the alleged document was a sale deed executed in 1970.
Ashok
Ajit
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
