Dismissed

Chand Singh & Ors. v. Lashkar Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2024RSA/4955/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application by appellants challenging the lower courts' concurrent findings dismissing a specific performance suit and awarding recovery of earnest money. The High Court, finding no illegality or perversity in the factual matrix, dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; the appeal was dismissed; miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Chand Singh & Ors. Vs Lashkar Singh & Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

RSA No.4955 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

2024:PHHC:121992

¶3

Neutral Cita�on No.2024:PHHC:121992

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

********

¶6

RSA No.4955 of 2014 (O&M) Reserved on: 11.09.2024 Pronounced on : 16.09.2024

¶7

Chand Singh and others

¶8

.....Appellants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Lashkar Singh and others

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶13

Present:Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the appellants. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 already ex parte vide order dated 27.01.2023.

¶14

¶15

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶16

CM No.9945-C of 2015

¶17

This is an applica'on for placing on record requisite Court fee.

¶18

Applica'on is allowed. Applicants- appellants are permi.ed to place on record the requisite Court fee.

¶19

RSA No.4955 of 2014 (O&M)

¶20

Defendant Bhagat Singh through his Legal Representa'ves (now appellants) are before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit filed by the plain'ffs – Lashkar Singh and Smt. Kirpal Kaur (contes�ng respondents herein) seeking a decree for specific performance based upon an agreement to sell dated 27.04.1996 regarding property in dispute, was decreed for alterna've relief of recovery

¶21

��

¶22

RENU 2024.09.16 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

RSA No.4955 of 2014 (O&M)

¶24

2024:PHHC:121992

¶25

of ₹1 lakh along with interest, though declining the relief of specific performance, by way of the judgment dated 20.12.2010 by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendant through his LRs was dismissed by the learned Addi'onal District Judge, Pa'ala vide judgment dated 08.07.2014.

¶26

Assailing the afore-said judgments, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and that the findings are based upon conjectures, inasmuch as agreement Ex.P1 was not proved.

¶27

3.1 It was pleaded by the plain'ffs that by way of an agreement to sell dated 27.04.1996 Ex.P1, defendant had agreed to sell the suit land for considera'on of ₹13 lakhs and had received an amount of ₹1 lakh as earnest money. The balance sale considera'on of ₹12 lakh was to be paid at the 'me of execu'on and registra'on of the sale deed. Defendant failed to perform his part of contract and started nego'a'ng with third party to alienate the suit property.

¶28

3.2 Defendant in his wri.en statement denied execu'on of the agreement or receipt of the earnest money and alleged that his signatures were obtained by the plain'ffs without informing him about the nature of document and without reading the contents thereof. It was further alleged by him that he did not have the right to sell the suit land 'll expiry of ten

¶29

years from the date of issuance of Sale Cer'ficate in his favour and, therefore, the alleged agreement was void.

¶30

3.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the

¶31

par'es was taken on record.

¶32

RENU 2024.09.16 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

��

¶34

RSA No.4955 of 2014 (O&M)

¶35

2024:PHHC:121992

¶36

3.4 It was found by the trial Court that the land in ques'on was allo.ed to the defendant by way of Sanad (Allotment Deed) dated 14.10.1997 under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1955 (for short `the 1955 Act'). Though the agreement to sell Ex.P1 was found to have been executed by the defendant on 27.04.1996 but it was found that at that 'me, defendant was not owner of the property in dispute. It was further found that Sec'on 31 of the 1955 Act debarred the defendant from selling the alleged property for a period of six years from the date of issuance of the cer'ficate. In these circumstances, it was held that decree for specific performance could not have be granted and as such, the plain'ffs were held en'tled to the recovery of earnest money received by the defendant, in view of Sec'on 65 of the Indian Contract Act.

¶37

3.5 The above-said findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

¶38

AFer perusing the trial Court record and the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity therein. On the date of execu'ng the agreement dated 27.04.1996, defendant was not owner of the suit property, inasmuch as it was allo.ed to him vide Allotment Deed dated 14.10.1997. He could not have sold the property for a period of six years as per the condi'ons of allotment. The receipt of ₹1 lakh paid by the plain'ffs to the defendant was duly proved. In these circumstances, the Courts below have rightly held that the plain'ffs

¶39

are en'tled to the recovery of said earnest money of 1 lakh from the defendant along with interest.

¶40

RENU 2024.09.16 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

��

¶42

RSA No.4955 of 2014 (O&M)

¶43

2024:PHHC:121992

¶44

As such, this Court does not find any substance to take a view different from the concurrent views taken by both the Courts below. There is no reason to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. No ques'on of law, much less substan'al ques'on of law, is found to be involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this court while exercising its jurisdic'on.

¶45

Dismissed. Misc. Applica'ons, if any, stand disposed of.

¶46

Septem	ber 16, 2024		(DEEPAK GUPTA)
*Renu*			JUDGE
	Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶47

RENU 2024.09.16 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶48

��

Chand Singh & Ors. v. Lashkar Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Singh & Ors. v. Lashkar Singh & Ors.

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

Shanti Devi Vs Rajesh and Anr.

Omwati Vs Narender and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Jagdish and Ors.

Dayal Chand Vs Jeet Kaur

Rakinder Singh Vs Gurmeet Khurana & Ors.

Sulakhan Singh Vs Bevi