Satpal Munjal Vs Naresh Kumar

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶11

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellant herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 02.09.2009. It was averred in the plaint that the parties were acquainted with each other and the defendant-respondent needed money for the construction of his house at Sector 13, Bhiwani and accordingly approached the plaintiff-appellant and agreed to sell his land measuring 1 kanal i.e. 7 marlas compromised in Khewat No.266/250 Khatoni No.358 Khasra No.3//5/2 (0-7) and the land measuring 13 marlas comprised in Khasra No.4//1 (5-19), western side, situated at Village Sumera Khera, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-appellant agreed to purchase the land measuring 1 kanal as

¶12

Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.06 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶13

-2-

¶14

RSA-3053-2019 (O&M)

¶15

the same was in front of his land. A writing was executed on 02.09.2009 (Ex.P1) for a sum of ₹1,65,000/- and the same was duly signed by the parties and the witnesses, namely, Jagat Narain, Rajinder Kumar and Om Parkash. It was further the case set up that at the time of writing of the agreement, ₹1,55,000/- was paid in cash and the remaining ₹10,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The other terms were settled orally. It was further the case that on 23.04.2011 a legal notice was sent to the defendant-respondent. Thereafter, on 30.11.2011 another legal notice was sent. Since the legal notices were not acknowledged, hence, the present suit. The defendant-respondent in his written statement admitted that he had agreed to sell 1 kanal of land comprised in Khewat No.21 Khatoni No.31 situated at village Sumra Khera to the plaintiff-appellant. However, he alleged that the sale consideration was ₹65,000/-, out of which, he got ₹55,000/- from the plaintiff-appellant. However, no witnesses, namely, Jagat Narain, Rajinder Kumar and Om Parkash, as alleged by the plaintiffappellant, were present at that time. It was further averred that the land comprised in Khewat No.21 Khatoni No.31 stood in the name of his brothers, namely, Rajpal and Sanjay Kumar and as per the family settlement, he was authorized to sell the said land. However, the plaintiff-appellant tampered with the receipt by inserting a figure ‘1’ before the amounts of ₹65,000/- and ₹55,000/- and had also given wrong description of the land. It was further averred that a fraud had been played with the defendantrespondent. It was further averred that he was willing to execute the sale deed with regard to land comprised in Khewat No.21 Khatoni No.31 on payment of the remaining amount. On the basis of the pleadings, the

¶16

Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.06 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA-3053-2019 (O&M)

¶18

-3-

¶19

following issues were framed :

¶20

Whether the defendant agreed to execute an agreement to sell dated 02.09.2009 in favour of plaintiff of the suit property mentioned in the head note of the plaint, if so its effect ? OPP

¶21

Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract ? OPP

¶22

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

¶23

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

¶24

Relief.

¶25

The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.2016 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant before the First Appellate Court which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the writing has been admitted by the defendant-respondent and in view of the admission that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff-appellant, the suit ought to have been decreed.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

¶28

In the present case the case set up was that the defendantrespondent had executed a writing dated 02.09.2009 (Ex.P1) in favour of the

¶29

Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.06 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶30

-4-

¶31

RSA-3053-2019 (O&M)

¶32

plaintiff-appellant qua land measuring 1 kanal for sale consideration of ₹1,65,000/-, out of which the plaintiff-appellant had paid ₹1,55,000/- to the defendant-respondent. The alleged writing (Ex.P1) reads as under :

¶33

“ ek kanal zameen sumra khera Sh. Satpal Munjal ko 1,65,000/- rupai mein bechi he jisme 1,55,000/- rupai nakad vasool paye”

¶34

The writing, as reproduced above, reveals that neither the area nor description of the land had been mentioned nor the target date. The language of the agreement to sell is such that it states that one kanal of land of Sumra Khera had been sold to Sh. Satpal Munjal for ₹1,65,000/- out of which ₹1,55,000/- had been received. There is no description of the land. Both the Couts held that the language of the said document was not that of an agreement, rather it spoke of some land having been sold. It was further held that admittedly, the language was that of a sale deed rather an agreement to sell and was not a registered document. The plaintiff-appellant having approached the Court had to prove his case in accordance with law. Though an agreement was admitted by the defendant-respondent, however, it was not qua the land as mentioned in the plaint. Even the amount was disputed. In such a situation, it was incumbent on the plaintiff-appellant to have proved that the said writing firstly was an agreement to sell and that it pertained to the land in question as described in the plaint and that the amount of ₹1,55,000/- had been paid in cash to the defendant-respondent. There is not an iota of evidence to remotely prove the above three ingredients.

¶35

In view of the above, no fault can be found with the judgments

¶36

Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.06 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶37

RSA-3053-2019 (O&M) -5-

¶38

and decrees passed by both the Courts. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶39

05.02.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶40

Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.06 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

Satpal Munjal v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Munjal v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawab Singh Alias Nawab Singh Manes and Another Vs Amarjit Singh Virk

Kunal Khurana Vs Punit Kumar

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sardanand (Since Deceased) through Lrs and Ors.

Amarjit Kaur and Others Vs Sadhu Singh and Others

Manju Alias Manju Devi Vs Pravin Bansal

Municipal Committee Vs Kamaljit Singh Pannu and Another