In this second appeal regarding a suit for specific performance of a land sale, the Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant failed to prove that a government allotment scheme prohibited the sale of the property. Consequently, no question of law arose to warrant interference with the lower courts' findings.
The second appeal falls and is 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.501 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.501 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.05.2015
Nasib Chand
..... Appellant
Versus
Nanjoo Ram ..... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the appellant.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
CM No.1350-C of 2011
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 8 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM No.1351-C of 2011
CM is allowed for making up deficiency in payment of Court Fee. Removal of deficiency, though later, was curable and would relate back to the date of filing of the appeal, by enlargement of time.
Main case
This is defendant's second appeal. The defendant is the vendor. He agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff by a written contract and then backed out of the deal. The learned trial Court partially decreed the suit. It did not grant decree of specific performance but ordered refund of earnest money. The plaintiff aggrieved by denial of right to transfer of land by registration of sale deed preferred an appeal under Section 96 CPC before MANJU 2015.05.15 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.501 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
the First Appellate Court which has reversed the finding of the learned trial Court which denied to the plaintiff a decree for possession by way of specific performance and limited relief to refund of earnest money. The suit was decreed in toto against which the second appeal was filed in 2011 against the appellate decree dated June 01, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala which has remained pending admission hearing since without any effective proceedings except adjournments sought from time to time.
The only defence taken in appeal by Mr Sodhi is that vendor was allotted the disputed property by Government being a member of the scheduled caste community in terms of a scheme to settle landless Harijans on public land. If he did not have the right to sell then the agreement to sell was a voidable transaction, if not void. However, the learned Appellate Court did not accept the defence for the simple reason that no evidence was produced by the defendant to prove the fact that there was prohibition against sale in the scheme of allotment and, therefore, the property could not be legally conveyed by a conveyance deed involving the suit property. In absence of any documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court did not rely on the oral testimony alone of the defendant's witnesses which were selfserving to the interest of the defendant. In absence of both oral and documentary evidence to prove the only defence taken against the decree, no question of law, much less a substantial one arises in the present appeal warranting admission of the matter. Mr Sodhi cannot deny that the defendant did not plead the defence of hardship in his written statement or produce any evidence that in case the decree of possession by way of
MANJU 2015.05.15 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.501 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
specific performance is passed he would suffer undue hardship and be rendered a person landless and homeless and therefore monetary compensation to the plaintiff would suffice.
No ground warranting interference is made out in the judgments
and decrees of the courts a quo .
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE
11.05.2015 manju
MANJU 2015.05.15 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal against the first appellate decree in a suit for specific performance warrants admission given the absence of evidence for the proposed defence?
Is the defence of prohibition against sale under government allotment scheme established to overturn the decree for refund of earnest money and denial of specific performance?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nasib Chand
Nanjoo Ram
Rajiv Narain Raina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
