High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Gurmit Singh & Ors v. Bhagat Ram & Ors - RSA-1027-2005  RD-P&H 2046 (27 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH
R.S.A. No.1027 of 2005
Date of decision: March 28,2006
Gurmit Singh and others V. Bhagat Ram and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellants.
Shri Kamal Kant Sharma,Advocate, for Shri Arun Nehra,Advocate, for respondent No.1
Shri Vijay Lath and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates for respondents No.2 to 6.
This order shall dispose of three regular second appeals being R.S.A. No.1027,2118 and 1722 of 2005, as all the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of a common suit filed by the plaintiff. Whereas R.S.A. No.1027 and 2118 of 2005 have been filed by defendants No.2 to 4, RSA No.1722 has been filed by legal representatives of defendants No.1.
A suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs with regard to an agreement dated December 5,1991 executed by Kartara,defendant, in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff pleaded that through the aforesaid agreement defendant, Kartara had agreed to sell land measuring49 kanals 12 marlas for an amount of Rs.15,500/-. The earnest money of Rs.25,000/- had been paid at the time of execution of the agreement. Sale deed was to be executed on or before January 28,1996.
Claiming that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant had not executed the sale deed, the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff.
During the course of the aforesaid suit, defendants No.2 to 4 purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated September 19,1996.
Consequently, the plaintiffs impleaded the aforesaid defendants as party to the suit.
R.S.A. No.1027 of 2005 2
The suit was contested by the defendants. Separate written statements were filed by defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4.
Defendant No.1 claimed that he had never executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff nor had received any earnest money. He claimed that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was forged and fabricated. He also claimed that the plaintiff along with one Piara Thekedar had illegally cut and removed the trees from the suit land and,therefore, the defendant had filed a suit for recovery. The suit in question had been filed by the plaintiff as a counter blast. It was also alleged that the plaintiff might have obtained thumb impression on the blank papers.
Defendants No.2 to 4 in their separate written statement took up identical pleas as were taken by defendant No.1 and additionally claimed that they had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated September 19,1996 for an amount of Rs.2,07,000/- and were bonafide purchasers for consideration without any notice of any earlier agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
The trial court held that the defendants No.2 to 4 were transferees lis pendence and, as such, could not be held to be bonafide purchasers. The trial court also held that the agreement in question had been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. However it was held that the suit land was a package deal property and,therefore, could not have been alienated prior to a period of 20 years from the date of its allotment to defendant No.1. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for refund of an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The trial Court also directed a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Collector for resumption of the land on the ground of violation of the conditions of Package Deal Properties (Disposal)Act,1976.
Two separate appeals were filed before the learned first appellate Court. One appeal was filed by the plaintiff. He prayed for decreeing of his suit for specific performance. Another appeal was filed by defendants No.2 to 4.
The learned first appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence. It noticed that as per the revenue record and as per the allotment made in favour of defendant No.1, a period of 20 years had already elapsed R.S.A. No.1027 of 2005 3
in the year 1995 and therefore, there was no violation of the Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act if the property was transferred in favour of the plaintiff. It was also held by the learned appellate court that the agreement in question was duly proved and defendant No.1 had received the earnest money at the time of the agreement. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the claim of the plaintiff and his appeal was allowed. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed for specific performance. Defendants No.2 to 4 was held to be not bonafide purchasers and it was held that since they had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and,therefore, the sale in their favour was hit by the principles of lis pendence.
Consequently, the appeal of defendants No.2 to 4 was dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel at some length, I do not find any justification to interfere in these appeals. The two courts below have concurrently held that the execution of the agreement by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff was proved and plaintiff had paid the earnest money to defendant No.1 at the time of the agreement. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The sale in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 was clearly during the pendency of the suit and,as such, the said defendants could not be held to be entitled to any protection in law because of the fact that their sale was hit by the principles of lis pendence.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,arises in the present appeals.
March 28,2006 (Viney Mittal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.