Appeal against reversal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell where the trial court had decreed only refund of earnest money. Upholding the appellate court's finding that the extension clause was fabricated and the plaintiff failed to perform, the court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial question of law.
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-5328 of 2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM-15065-C-2019 in/and RSA-5328 of 2019 Date of Decision: September 16, 2024
Dayal Chand … Appellant
Versus
Jeet Kaur …Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
CM-15065-C-2019
This is an applica�on under Sec�on 149 read with Sec�on 151 CPC for making up the deficiency of Court fees.
For the reasons as men�oned in the applica�on, supported by the affidavit of Clerk of the appellant, the same is allowed.
RSA-5328-2019 (O&M)
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.04.2006 filed by plain�ff – Dayal Chand (appellant herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 05.12.2015 for alternate relief of the recovery of ₹8 lacs with propor�onate costs and interest but declining the relief of specific performance. Appeal filed by defendant – Smt. Jeet Kaur (respondent herein) has been allowed by learned Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali by way of judgment dated 18.04.2019, whereby the suit has been dismissed in toto with costs throughout. It is against this reversal that the present appeal has been filed by the plain�ff.
Page no.1 out of 5 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.17 03:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
RSA-5328 of 2019 (O&M)
Page no.2 out of 5 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.17 03:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
RSA-5328 of 2019 (O&M)
file as Mark A/Ex.D1. Said fact was admi9ed by the plain�ff in his crossexamina�on that copy of the agreement to sell was handed over to the defendant. It was found by the Appellate Court that when the copy of the agreement was handed over to the defendant, it did not bear the signatures of the marginal witnesses, which clearly indicated that signatures of the marginal witness on the agreement Ex.PW1 produced by the plain�ff were obtained later on and that this fact was not even disputed by the marginal witnesses of the agreement, i.e. PW2 – Sher Singh and PW3 – Balwinder Singh in their respec�ve cross-examina�on and in these circumstances, possibility could not be ruled out that extension clause dated 05.09.2006 was prepared later on by the plain�ff with the help of the marginal witnesses. Learned Appellate Court also observed that both PW2 – Sher Singh and PW3- Balwinder Singh appeared to be stock witnesses of the plain�ff, who remained present with him on each and every occasion. It was also no�ced that plain�ff had u9erly failed to prove the readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, as despite extension of �me for execu�on of sale deed, he did not even put in appearance before the Sub Registrar office on 18.08.2006 and even if the said date, i.e. 18.08.2006 was a holiday, he did not appear before the Sub Registrar on the next working date, i.e. 21.02.2006, though defendant had appeared there on that date as per her affidavit Ex.D2 executed by the Execu�ve Magistrate.
Page no.3 out of 5 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.17 03:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
RSA-5328 of 2019 (O&M)
the record, because there is men�on of no�ce dated 29.08.2006 even in the extension clause dated 05.09.2006, which has been found to be prepared later on by the plain�ff.
Page no.4 out of 5 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.17 03:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
RSA-5328 of 2019 (O&M)
proper apprecia�on of evidence on record. No substan�al ques�on of law is found to be involved in the present appeal. As such, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
September 16, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page no.5 out of 5 pages
Sarita Rani 2024.09.17 03:35 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness and the authenticity of the alleged extension clause dated 05.09.2006.
Whether earnest money paid under an agreement to sell could be refunded on the plaintiff's failure to perform.
Whether the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court decree involved any substantial question of law warranting dismissal of the RSA appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Batra v. Sudhir RawalReferred¶7
"Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rawal", 2013(1) SCC 345, · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dayal Chand
Jeet Kaur
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
