High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Darshan Singh & Ors v. Sadhu Ram & Anr - LPA-349-1986  RD-P&H 622 (7 February 2006)
in RFA No.25 of 1977 1
Darshan Singh and others V. Sadhu Ram and another Present: Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate,for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
The plaintiffs are in appeal. They have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated October 24,1985 whereby on an appeal filed by defendant Sadhu Ram, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and, consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated July 26,1976 executed by defendant, Sadhu Ram, for sale of 29 kanals 18 marlas of land, along with vacant site and 3 H.P. of electric motor for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,500/-. It was claimed that at the time of execution of agreement, a sum of Rs.7,000/- has been paid as earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on or before December 10,1974. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and, as such, had sent a registered notice to defendant, Sadhu Ram , through their counsel on October 8,1974 that he should not alienate Letters Patent Appeal No.349 of 1986
in RFA No.25 of 1977 2
the land to any other person. A reply to the aforesaid notice was sent by Tara Devi, mother of defendant, Sadhu Ram, on December 4,1974 through her counsel claiming that Sadhu Ram was minor and ,as such, the agreement was null and void and without consideration. On the receipt of the aforesaid reply, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs.
The suit was contested by defendant,Sadhu Ram. It was claimed that plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. It was also claimed by him that defendant was a major and he had no knowledge of reply , if any, given by his mother. The defendant , in fact, pleaded that the plaintiffs had committed the breach of contract as they had no money to pay the balance sale consideration. According to the defendant, money for the purchase of the land was sought to be arranged by the plaintiffs by the sale of their own land to their maternal uncle, which transaction did not materialize and, as such, the plaintiffs did not have necessary funds to get the sale deed executed.
The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. It was held that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and the defendant had failed to abide by the sale. It was held that the plaintiffs had sent a registered notice to the defendant to get the sale Letters Patent Appeal No.349 of 1986
in RFA No.25 of 1977 3
deed executed and appeared before the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date but the defendant did not turn up.
The defendant took up the matter in first appeal before this Court. The learned Single Judge reappraised the entire material on record.
Various pleas raised by the parties were examined. On the basis of the aforesaid reappraisal, the learned Single Judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that they had the requisite money to pay for the sale consideration to the defendant or that they were ever ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant was accepted and consequently the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
The plaintiffs have consequently filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before this Court.
We have heard Shri R.K.Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
A positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that there was no evidence led by the plaintiffs that they had the requisite money to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant.
Letters Patent Appeal No.349 of 1986
in RFA No.25 of 1977 4
Although it had been claimed by the plaintiffs that the aforesaid money was with their commission agent but the aforesaid commission agent has not been examined. No other evidence has been produced in the shape of bank statement etc. to show that the plaintiffs had requisite money available with them. The plaintiffs had served the notice Ex.P2/A but the aforesaid notice was only to the effect that the defendant should not sell the property to any other person. At no point of time, the plaintiffs ever asked the defendant that he should get the sale deed executed in their favour.
Nothing has been shown that the finding of facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are erroneous in any manner.
No question of law is shown to be involved in the present appeal.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
( Viney Mittal )
July 26,2005 ( H.S.Bedi )
Letters Patent Appeal No.349 of 1986
in RFA No.25 of 1977 5
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.