Dismissed

Sukhbir Singh v. Sharanjeet Kaur and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2016RSA/2992/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The High Court held that the requirement of producing attesting witnesses under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act was not met, making the agreement unprovable. Consequently, the appellant's self-serving statement was rejected and the appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the agreement to sell was not properly proved under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Sukhbir Singh Vs Sharanjeet Kaur… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

RSA No.2992 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.2992 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.04.10.2016

¶5

Sukhbir Singh .......Appellant

¶6

¶7

Sharanjeet Kaur and another ........Respondents Present: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶10

C.M. No.7996-C of 2016

¶11

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 23 days in

¶12

refiling the appeal is condoned.

¶13

Application is allowed.

¶14

C.M. No.7998-C of 2016

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, permission for making good the deficiency of court fee is granted.

¶16

Application is allowed.

¶17

RSA No.2992 of 2016 (O&M)

¶18

The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit seeking symbolic possession and specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.07.2004 whereby the amount agreed in the agreement i.e. `40,000/- has been paid.

¶19

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Courts below have declined the relief on the ground that the defendant was one of the co-owners of the property and not PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.10.07 11:53I attest to the accuracy and the absolute owner. The defendant appeared and filed written statement integrity of this document

¶20

RSA No.2992 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

¶21

denying the agreement to sell but thereafter proceeded ex parte. The Court could have believed the un-rebutted statement of the plaintiff. All these facts escaped notice of the Courts below, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by formulating the substantial questions of law as drawn in the memorandum of appeal.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book. To prove the agreement to sell, the requirement of law under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been satisfied. At least one attesting witness has to be produced/examined for proving the agreement to sell and possession. In the absence of the same, the Courts would not believe the self-serving statement of the plaintiff that he was/is in possession. The target date was 15.01.2005 and the suit was filed on 14.12.2005.

¶23

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the relief of symbolic possession and specific performance could not have been granted, rightly, so the Courts below have dismissed the suit. I do not find any reason to differ with the judgments and decrees under challenge, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. No ground for interference is made out. The second appeal is dismissed.

¶24

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶25

October 04, 2016 Pankaj*

¶26

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶27

PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.10.07 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhbir Singh v. Sharanjeet Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhbir Singh v. Sharanjeet Kaur and Anr.

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

Isaab & Anr. Vs Shamsher & Ors.

Bhupinder Kaur Vs Baljit Singh & Ors.

Dinesh Vs Ompati & Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana etc.

Swaran Chand & Ors. Vs Sadhu Ram & Ors.

Bhagwanti Vs Boota Singh & Ors.