Ex. Captain Bant Singh v. Smt. Amarjit Kaur

Present: Mr. CB Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Smt. Amarjit Kaur-respondent with her counsel Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent. GURDEV SINGH, J. This second appeal has been preferred by appellant/plaintiff Ex. Captain Bant Singh, against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the appeal preferred by this plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing his suit for possession of the land in dispute measuring 74 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Shouley, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 25.2.1981, was dismissed. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the defendant is the widow of Bhag Singh, who was employed in the Army and died in Indo-Pak war of 1965. Being a war widow, as per the State policy, RSA No. 670 of 2007 2 she was entitled to 10 acres of land. She was not in a position to find out the site and, as such, could not get the land allotted. She entered into an agreement dated 25.2.1981 with him, after receiving ` 40,000/- in cash and as per that agreement he was bound to take the proceedings for getting the land allotted and he was to meet all the expenses for the allotment thereof and thereafter the sale deed was to be executed in favour of his nominee for which the defendant executed general Power of Attorney dated 25.2.1981 in favour of his son. With the help of his consistent labour, he located the land in dispute, which was duly allotted in the name of defendant on 29.1.1982. After getting the land demarcated, he took the possession thereof and started cultivating the same. His possession was disturbed by the Central Seed Farms Corporation and accordingly, he filed the suit before the Sales Commissioner, which was decided on 27.2.1984 and the allotment was cancelled. He preferred the appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner, which was accepted on 9.4.1984. As per the order dated 10.12.1986 passed by this court, the possession was ordered to be delivered to the allottee. For pursuing these proceedings, he spent about ` 44,500/- and had to pay about 15 visits to the office of the Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation and other authorities. After the order of delivery of possession was made, the said Corporation approached Parminder Singh, attorney of the defendant, for exchanging the land, which was situated in village Kharak, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. An agreement dated 25.2.1988 was executed between the defendant through that attorney and the Corporation, in pursuance of which she was allotted land of the same area in village Kharak and the possession was delivered to her attorney. As per the agreement entered between the defendant with him, she was bound to RSA No. 670 of 2007 3 execute the conveyance deed in his favour regarding the land received in exchange. She illegally cancelled the general Power of Attorney dated

25.2.1981 on 6.4.1988, which was clever overt act on her part as she had already received the total sale consideration and in view of that she was legally bound to execute the sale deed in his favour. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, he is entitled to the possession of the land by way of specific performance of the agreement. The suit was contested by the defendant. In her written statement, she admitted that the plaintiff had contacted him to help her in getting the relief from the Government and in that regard obtained her signatures on various documents. She also admitted that she executed the Power of Attorney dated 25.2.1981 which was in favour of Parminder Singh son of the plaintiff. She denied the other contentions made in the plaint and inter-alia, pleaded that the contents of those documents were never made known to her and the agreement dated 25.2.1981 is vague and indefinite. She received only ` 17,000/- from the plaintiff. She came to know about the allotment of the land only in March, 1988 and the said exchange was never with her consent. On the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial court:-

1. Whether defendant entered into agreement dated

25.2.1981 with plaintiff as alleged ? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved whether plaintiff was and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP RSA No. 670 of 2007 4

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement ? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of ` 1,74,843.15 P from the plaintiff ? OPP

5. Whether the suit is speculative and unconscionable as alleged, if so its effect ? OPD 5A. Whether the alleged agreement is result of guilty and playing fraud with the defendant ? OPD 5B. Whether the relief of specific performance can not be granted to the plaintiff against the defendant being helpless widow ? OPD 5C. Whether the suit of plaintiff is within time ? OPP

6. Relief. The parties produced their evidence on those issues. After going through the same and hearing the learned counsel on their behalf, the trial court recorded the findings on all those issues and as a result those findings dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. He preferred the first appeal, which was dismissed, as aforesaid. The following order was passed by this Court on 19.3.2007. “Learned counsel for the appellant states that the plaintiff would be satisfied if a decree for recovery of ` 40,000/- along with interest is granted in favour of the appellant. Notice of motion for 21.5.2007.” Therefore, in view of that order, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the recovery of that amount alongwith the interest. At the time of arguments, the respondent was present and she RSA No. 670 of 2007 5 suffered a statement that she has no objection if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of ` 40,000/- and the interest be allowed at a reasonable rate. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for recovery of ` 40,000/-. At this stage, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time the money was advanced to the defendant, the bank rate of interest was @ 18% per annum and, as such, interest be allowed at that rate. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant that she is a poor war widow and the interest be allowed only @ 6% per annum. Keeping in view the position of the parties, the nature of the transaction and the facts of the present case, the interest is allowed on the said amount @ 12% per annum from the date of the agreement till the filing of the suit and @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of the decreetal amount. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared. November 17, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE