UNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ngh Swaran Singh Rattan Singh & gh v. M) RSA No
Case Details
RSA No. 3534 534 of 2011 IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ngh Swaran Singh Rattan Singh & gh & Ors. Versus M) RSA No. 3534 of 2011 (O&M) 25 Reserved on: 17.07.2025 25 Pronounced on: 21.07.2025 nt …Appellant nts …Respondents CORAM: HON ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPT UPTA Argued by:- M Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, For the respondents. DEEPAK GUPT UPTA, J. Plaintiff of the case is before thi lar e this court in the present regular second appe ppeal against the reversal, ific inasmuch as suit for specific ina performance ce [CS RT N: 286/2004/2002] file
Legal Reasoning
nts filed by him against defendants Rattan Singh a gh and other (now respondents), wa of was decreed by the trial court of Ld. Addl. Civil Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Faridkot on 21 CA n 21.05.2008, but the appeal [CA RT N: 142/20 2/2008/2009] filed by defendant ent ant Rattan Singh i.e. respondent herein, was pa s partly accepted by the first Appell ge, pellate Court of Ld. District Judge, Faridkot vide ide his judgment dated 03.01.2011, of 011, whereby though the relief of refund of earn earnest money was granted to the he the plaintiff - appellant, but the relief of specif ecific performance was declined. 2. The trial court record available o ith le on DMS has been perused with the assistance ance of learned counsel for both he oth parties. For convenience, the parties are ref referred to by their status before t re the trial court. 3. Brief Facts: The suit was filed fo an d for specific performance of an agreement to t to sell dated 28.06.2001(Ex.P5) e an 5) executed by defendant Rattan Singh (respon pondent herein), owner of 16 kanal re nal of land (being 320/1342 share out of a total total of 57 kanal 2 marla) in favou he avour of the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, the a he agreed consideration was ₹2,00, - ,00,000/-, out of which ₹91,000/- was paid as ea as earnest money. The balance ₹1,0 he ₹1,09,000/- was to be paid at the JITEN SHARMA 2025.07.21 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 4 Page ages RSA No. 3534 534 of 2011 time of execu ecution and registration of the sal ate sale deed, for which target date was fixed as as 28.06.2002. The plaintiff claim nt laimed that he remained present before the Sub Sub-Registrar on the scheduled da to d date, but the defendant failed to appear. A lega legal notice dated 08.07.2002 was ail. was also served, but to no avail. Asserting his his continuous readiness and wil ght willingness, the plaintiff sought specific perfor rformance or, in the alternative, rec , recovery of ₹2,00,000/-. 4. Defendant No.2 – Faridkot Prim re Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development ent Bank – was impleaded as a p in a proforma party, as the land in question was m as mortgaged with it. 5.1 Defendant No.1 denied the e nt, e execution of the agreement, alleging that hat it was merely a security docum - ocument for a loan of ₹60,000/- taken from th the plaintiff, manipulated by addi 4% adding interest at the rate of 24% per annum. He . He claimed fraud and misrepresen esentation. 5.2 Defendant No.2 (Bank) asserted ot rted that defendant No.1 was not competent to t to sell the land until the loan was d as discharged. 6. After framing issues and record urt cording evidence, the trial court decreed the s he suit for specific performance. H urt e. However, the Appellate Court reversed this f his finding, granting only the refund fund of earnest money. ns: Submissions: 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellan of llant argued that the execution of the agreemen ment and plaintiff’s readiness and ed and willingness were duly proved and even acce accepted by the Appellate Court. ble urt. Thus, declining the equitable relief of specif ous. ecific performance was erroneous. 8. In response, counsel for the res he respondent did not dispute the execution of t of the agreement but supported t on, ed the Appellate Court’s decision, citing the lan land’s mortgaged status and joi to joint ownership as barriers to specific perfor rformance. Analysis by th y this court: 9. The only point for determination as ation is whether the plaintiff was rightly denied nied the discretionary relief of spe irst specific performance by the First JITEN SHARMA 2025.07.21 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 4 Page ages RSA No. 3534 534 of 2011 Appellate Cou Court, despite proven execution his tion of the agreement and his readiness and and willingness. 10. Execution of the agreement date te. dated 28.06.2001 is not in dispute. Both courts fo ts found in favour of the plaintiff o us tiff on this aspect. His continuous readiness an and willingness were also so established and ed remained ged.(cid:1) unchallenged. 11. The First Appellate Court decline ing clined specific performance citing Section 17 of t of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, not as , noting that the suit property was under mortga rtgage not just by the defendant bu ev t but also by his co-sharer Gurdev Singh, and wa was joint & undivided.(cid:1) 12. 13. Section 17 of the Specific Relief Ac Contract to sell or let property by o y enforceable. “17. ically en ief Act, 1963 reads as under: f- by one who has no title, not specif- (1) A con enforced (a) who contract (b) who, title to t for the c free from (2) The contract contract to sell or let any immovable -- rced in favour of a vendor or lessor-- who, knowing himself not to have racted to sell or let the property; ho, though he entered into the contr to the property, cannot at the time fix he completion of the sale or letting, gi from reasonable doubt. he provisions of sub-section (1) shall racts for the sale or hire of movable p Section 17 bars enforcement only lly vable property cannot be specifically as ave any title to the property, has od ontract believing that he had a good urt e fixed by the parties or by the court itle g, give the purchaser or lessee a title to hall also apply, as far as may be, to le property.” gly only where the vendor knowingly lacks title or c or cannot convey a title, free from me rom reasonable doubt at the time on. of execution. 14. In the present case, defendant N ad nt No.1 was a co-sharer and had contracted to d to sell only his defined share (320/ ays 320/1342). A co-sharer can always transfer his u is undivided share, though not a on. t a specific demarcated portion. Thus, no defec efect in title existed. 15. The mere existence of a mortgag ific tgage is not a legal bar to specific performance. ce. At best, the plaintiff steps into or into the shoes of the mortgagor and assumes es corresponding liabilities. The c is he co-mortgagor’s involvement is irrelevant to t to the enforceability of defendant he dant No.1’s obligations under the agreement. JITEN SHARMA 2025.07.21 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 4 Page ages RSA No. 3534 534 of 2011 16. The reasons assigned by the Fi us e First Appellate Court are thus misplaced and and unsustainable in law. Once in ce title of a co-sharer is not in dispute and th d the agreement is valid, specific p ied fic performance cannot be denied merely due to land.(cid:1) e to mortgage or joint status of land (cid:1) Conclusion:(cid:1) 17. Consequent to the aforesaid aid discussion, it at is held that judgment & d & decree dated 03.01.2011 passed urt ssed by the first Appellate Court cannot be sus sustained. The same are hereby se tly y set aside. Trial Court had rightly decreed the su he suit of the plaintiff-appellant for ms for specific performance in terms of agreement ent to sell dated 28.06.2001. As su ed s such, judgment & decree dated 21.05.2008 as 8 as passed by the trial Court are he e hereby restored. (cid:1) 18. Appeal is accordingly accepted, ear ted, leaving the parties to bear their own cost costs. 21.07.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.07.21 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 4 of 4 Page ages