I N THE HI C9 v. CharaniitSinghand ot hers

agreeinentt o sell dat ed 291 21 982 execut edbyCharanj itSinghdefendant JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh 408 0 6s 1 RSAN03763 of 1987 2m 0 C I C0 I Z a t r I 08 QO in respectoft he land in disput ewhich was fullydet ailed in t he head not e of t he plaintI t was pleadedt hat respondentnol had agreed t o sell t he suit land for a t ot al considerat ionofRsA55001 and had received of Rs100001e from t he plaint iffas eam est m oney On t he dat e of agreem entdat ed 29121982 lt was furt her pleadedt hat t he sale deed was t o be execut ed and or before 281 1983 aft er paym entof reinainingsale considerat ion I t was averred t hat t he plaint iffhad always rem ained readyand willingt o performhis partof cont act and is st ill ready and willingt o do noMd P So but t he greedfor lnoney had changedt he m ind of 118 had fal1en lll t he hands of Darshan Singhand l Sm t esham Kaur present and one Bhaj an Kaur of village Pabwan and had t ried t o sell t he suit land t o t hem which com pelledhim t o flle a suit for pet lm anentinj unct ionin which ad int erim st aywas grant edI t W8S allegedt hat duringt he pendencyof t he said suit when t he had flled an applicat ionfor vacat ion of int erim st ay it t ranspiredt hat a false and fict it ious docum entin t he shape t o sell dat ed6 1 1982was got preparedin respectof t he SUlt land from in favourof Gurm ej no3 I t was prayedt hat since t he plaint iffhad rem ained alwaysreadyand willingt o performhis part of agreem ent l be direct ed t o execut e t he sale deed lI l furt heranceof agreem entdat ed 2912982 and t he possessionof t he suit land be got delivered t o him alt er paym ent of t he rem ainingsale considerat ion I n t he alt ernat ive a prayer for passinga decree of recovery of Rs100001 alongwit h st ipulat eddam agesof Rs00001 Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and special 409 0 I c RSAN03763 of 1987 8 1 1 r 0 C I C5 I Z e r 08 Q0 n7 Z dam agesofRsO000 was m ade Uponnot ice appellantnol no l and ie Darshan SinghCharanj itSinghand Gurm ejSinghappearedand flled t heir j ointwrit t en st at em ent resist ingt he suit whereasappellantno 2 did not appear despit eservice I n t he preliininaryobj ect ionst heyhad allegedt hat agreem entdat ed 292 982 was never execut ed in favour of 1 t he plaint iffwhich was st at edt o be a forgedand fabricat eddocum ent I t was averred t hat t he suit land was byappellantno frot n nol by virt ue of sale deed dat ed 121 1983 which was 1421983 for a considerat ion of RsAO0001 and t hat t he said t ransact ion was prot ect edby t he provisionsof Sect ion 41 of t he Transfer of Propert y Act 1882 6forshort t he 1882 Act On m erit s t he averm ent s of t he plaint iffwere allegedt o be wrong and denied lt was pleadedt hat nol had execut edan agreem entt o sell dat ed 161982 in favour no3 ln respectof t he suit land I n t his agreem entit was st ipulat edt hatt he sale deed would be execut edby m favour or any ot her person nom inat ed by him on or before 201 1983and pursuantt o t hat t he sale deed was got execut edon l l 1983 on 141983 in favour ofappellantno I t was claim ed t hat appellantnol wasa bona fide purchasefor considerat ion and agreem entt o sell dat ed29121982 in favour oft he plaint iffwasa sham t ransact ion On t he pleadingsof t he part iest he followingissues fram ed Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh 1 Whet her defendant No 1nalnelyCharanj itSinghexecut ed JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 410 0 P RSAN03763 of 1987 4 1 0 Cso I CA0 I Z m Ct I Cl8 Qo Z t o sell t he suit land dat ed 291282 in favour of t he plaint iffand received an am ount of Rs100001 earnestm oney7I f so it s effect 20PP 2 Whet hert he plaint iffhadbeen and iswillingt o performhis partof t he cont ract in regardt o t he allegedagreem entt o sell deed dt 2912822 I fso it s effect 20PP 3 I f secondpartof issueNo l ie t he paym entof an am ount of Rs 100001 as earnest m oney is provedwhet her defendant No is readyt o pay back t he said am ount t o t he plaint iff7I f so what is it s effect 2OPD 4 Whet her defdt lVo nam elyCharanj itSinghexecut ed an t o sell deed dt 82 in regardt o t he suit land in favour oof defendant NoAnam ely Gurm ejSingh and received an am ount of Rs10000 as earnest m oney2I f soit s effect 20PD 5 Whet her t he plaint iffis barredby his act and conduct from t llingt he presentsuit 2OPD 5A Whet her defendantNo is prot ect eduls 41 oft he TP Act as he haspurchasedt he land ln suit as bona flde purchaserSom defendantN0170PD 6 Relief Aft er appraisalof t he ent lre evidence on record t he t rial Court passeda decree for asum of Rs200001 in favour of t he plaint iffand against Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh no l wit h cost s I t was furt her direct ed t hat respondent JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 411 0 1 RAN03763 of 1987 S 1 0 0 I C5 I Z I cRj 7 Z Ll 1101 would also be liable t o pay fut ureint ereston t he said am ount at t he rat e of 12I o per annum Som t he dat e of filingof t he suit t ill realisat ion Prior t heret o t he t rial Court concluded t hat t he agreem entt o sell in favour oft he was valid and so was t he agreem entdat ed 29121 982 but since t he sale deed had alreadybeen in favour of appellantno 1 t he agreem entln favour of t he plaint iffwas rendered inexecut able and t herefore t t was SpecificRelief a fit case t o resort t o t he provisionsof Sect ion 20 of t he Act l 963 6forbrevit yt he 1963 Act 1 ln appealt he first appellat eCourt reversedt he Sndingsoft he t rial Court and held t hat t he agreem entt o sell in favour of and consequent saledeed in favour of appellantno were t he docum ent s execut edpurelyt o defeat t he right soft he plaint iffI t was furt her concluded t he agreem entt o sell t he execut ion of shroudedin suspiciouscircum st ancesand t hat appellantno in favour of fide purchaserof t he Sllit no3 was l was not a bona alongwit h t he was direct ed t o execut e a sale deed in favour oft he plaint iff pursuantt o agreem entt o sell dat ed29121982 aft er receiptoft he rem aining sale considerat ion This has result edin t he filingoft he inst ant appealby t he Learned counsel for t he has cont ended t hat t he flndingsof t he first appellat eCourt are perverse and are liable t o be set aside He lrt her cont endedt hat t he sam e are cont raryt o t he m at erial on record Accordingt o him t he followingquest ionsof considerat ionoft his Court Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh law arise for JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 412 0 RA1Vo3763 of 1987 m 6 r 0 C0 I C9 I Z r I 08 QO Z r 1 Whet her in t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case t he appellant sare prot ect edunder Sect ion 41 of t he Transfer of Propert yAct 2 2 Whet her it is legallynecessaryt hat t he agreeinentshould be scribed by a regulardeed writ er2 3 Whet her st am p papers m uch prior t o t he execut lOO of flct it ious t he agreem entwould m ake t he agreem ent 4 Whet her t he j udgm entof t he lower appellat eCourt holding t hat exhibit Dl is not a genuineagreem entt o sell and was prepared oft he evidence or not 2 is a findingbased on perverse reading On t he ot her hand I earnedcounsel for t he legal of t he plaint iffdefendedt he observat ionsinade byt he first appellat eCourt and st at edt hat t hereis no infirm it yoor perversit yt herein and t hat t herewasa cogentreasoninggivenin t he im pugnedj udgm entt o supportt he sam e He t hus prayedfor dism issal oft he appeal I have consideredt he rival cont ent ions and have gonet hrought he whole record The cont roversycent resaround t wo issues which were fram ed and answeredbybot h t he Court s below ie issue no l and issuenoeA The plaint iffin order t o prove his case had brouht evidence t o show t hat agreem entdat ed 291 21882 was a valid pieceof evidence Pursuant t o t his agreem entRs 100001 were also paidas earnest JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh 413 0 1L RSANo763 of 1987 a7 0 C3 I C Z C I 08 QO w Z m oney Bot h t he appellant s and denied t he agreem entt o in favour of t he plaint iffand t he agreem entt o sell dat ed 1 6982 and consequentsale deed in favour of appellantno However t heyhave done so wlt hout qualifyingas t o how agreeinentt o sell in favour of t he plaint iffcam e lnt o exist ence On t he ot her hand t he plaint iffhad shown t hat he had filed a sult for perm anentinj unct ionon 1211983 seekingt o rest rain from alienat ngt he suit land as he had coine t o know about t he agreem entt o sell ionfavour He had also succeededin obt ainingint enm inj unct ionin t hat regardbut Slnce t he dat e for execut ion oft he sale deed ie 281983 had expiredaft er t he processhad been init iat ed in t hat suit t he inj unct ionwas not carried forward any 8lrt her and t he plaint iffinst ant lyt hereaer on 3 11 1983 filed t he presentsuit for speciflc ofappellantnol The sale deed was execut edin favour on 1421983 aft er t he inst antsuit had com e int o exist ence I f t he agreem entt o sell in favour of appellantnol is t o be seen t hen it 1S shroudedin suspiciouscircum st ances t he reasons ofwhich have been dealt wit h by t he first appellat eCourt I t has not been scribed by a deed writ er and was writ t en by a Pat wari who was not producedn t he Wit ness box The agreem entwas also not accorded anyserial nuinber in t he regist erand t herefore on t his account t he m arginalwit ness who had st at ed while appearingin t he wt ness box t hat ent rywas m ade in t he regist erwas also falsi fled Moreover t he st am ppaper on which it was scribed was in t he year 1980 whereast he agreem entwas scribed on l 6982 Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned and t herewere Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh on t hese st am ppaper t hat lt was JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document a 414 0 t e 1 t RSAN03763 of 1987 8 concoct ed doculnent I t was t herefore right lydiscarded by t he Srst appellat eCourt The quest ionof appellantno beinga bona fide purchase 1 also held againsthim for right fulreasons The inst ant suit was Sled on 3111983 whereast he sale deed in favour of appellantno l was scribed on m 1111983 and was got 1421983 ie duringt he pendencyof 0 C3 I C5 I Z m Ct I 08 r Z Ll t he suit and t hus t he fllingoft he sult was verywell wit hin t he knowledge The sale in favour of appellantnol ist herefore hit by t he t he principleoflis pendensand t heappellantnol cannot be held t o be bona fide purchaseroft he suit land Accordinglyirresist ible conclusion is t hat once t he agreem ent t o sell is held t o be a non4oonafide and fict it ious docum entand t he fact t hat t he sale deed was scribed on 121 983 duringt he pendencyoft he suit and were very well aware of t he agreem entt o also t he fact t hat t he in favour of t he plaint iffwho had also Oled a sult for perm anent lllJunct ion111 which t heyhad also as defendant s I am of t he considered opiniont hat appellantno l cannot be const rued t o be a bona fide purchaserof t he SUlt land and t herefore t he flndingsof t he first appellat eCourt are correct andj ust ified There beingan agreem entt o sell in favour of t he plaint iffand his willingnesst o performhis partof agreem entwhich is apparentfrom t he fact t hat t he m om ent he cam e t o know t hat t ryingt o land t o som e one else he had filed a suit for perm anent inj unct iont here is no ot her opt ionbut t o decree t he suit for specic JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document sell t he suit Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh 415 0 l4 RSAN03763 of 1987 w9 I t is also in evidence t hat ono3 in whose favour t o sell dat ed 1 61982 was execut ed was a front m an for t he as it has com e record t hat aft er givingt he am ount t o him t he abroad The of t he suit land was concededlywit h t he plaint iffandnow wit h his legal As observed in t he foregoing t he agreem ent111 favour of t he appellaI lt swas t oo deeplym ired in suspiciousclrcum st ances t heywere cert ainlynot bona flde for considerat ion I n such t he appealof t he is rej ect ed and t he flndingsoft he Srst appellat eCourt are afflrm ed The quest ionsof law which hae been raised are not really subst ant ialquest ionsof I aw t o be det erm inedin a RegularSecond Appeal February10 2010 SCl e I Mahesh Grover l Judge 1 0 C C I Z I 08 ClQ 07 Z t l 1 2 Pooj a 2013.06.25 10: 51 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document