10.09.2025 Baljinder Singh Baljinder Singh Bhupinder Singh and others Bhupinder Singh and others …… v. Versus .…
Case Details
RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) [1 1] 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH ***** RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) Reserved on:- 04.09.2025 Reserved on: Date of Pronouncement .2025 Pronouncement: 10.09.2025 Baljinder Singh Baljinder Singh Bhupinder Singh and others Bhupinder Singh and others …….Appellant Versus Versus .….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: Present: Mr.A.K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) judgments and Defendant No.4 is in appeal against the judgments and Defendant No.4 is in appeal decrees dated 28.02.2013 and 01.08.2016 decrees dated passed by the Courts 28.02.2013 and 01.08.2016 passed by the Courts below; whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.13,50,000/ below; whereby the suit for including recovery of Rs.13,50,000/- including Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation besides claim towards Rs.3,00,000/ interest @ besides claim towards interest @ 12% per annum came to be partly decreed in favour of 12% per annum respondent partly decreed in favour of respondent entitled for recovery of Rs.7,50,000/- entitled for recovery of Rs.7,50,000/ No.1/ plaintiff while holding him entitled for recovery of Rs.7,50,000/ No.1/ plaintiff from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of institution of SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) [2 2] suit and further pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annu suit and further and future interest @ 6% per annum m till actual realization of amount. actual realization of amount. 2. plaintiff Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/ plaintiff Brief facts of the case are that filed a suit for recovery against the defendants filed a suit alleging that against the defendants-appellant alleging that eys on 13.12.2002/21.12.2002, defendant No.1 through his attorneys on 13.12.2002/21.12.2002, defendant No.1 through on 13.12.2002/21.12.2002, defendant No.1 through defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of defendants No.2 & 3 agreed to sell 221.81 sq yards area out of Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung Khasra Number 713 min, situated within the revenue estate of Tung bearing Bala Urban, Abadi Basant Avenue, Amritsar on which Kothi bearing Bala Urban, Abadi Basant Avenue, Amritsar on which Kothi Bala Urban, Abadi Basant Avenue, Amritsar on which Kothi existing, municipal No.472 was already existing, municipal in of plaintiff/ favour of plaintiff/ against total respondent No.1 and defendant No.4 in equal shares against total respondent No.1 and defendant No.4 in equal shares respondent No.1 and defendant No.4 in equal shares . It was pleaded that at the time sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/-. It was pleaded that at the time . It was pleaded that at the time sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/ of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 of execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff and defendant No.4 advanced Rs.5,00,000/- in equal proportio advanced Rs.5,00,000/ n and the sale deed was to in equal proportion and the sale deed was to plaintiff handed over be executed on or before 25.03.2003. Further, plaintiff handed over be executed on or before 25.03.2003 be executed on or before 25.03.2003 and one three cheques bearing Nos.759253, 759254 and 759255 and one three cheques bearing Nos.759253, 759254 and 759255 three cheques bearing Nos.759253, 759254 and 759255 17.03.2003 amounting to Rs.2 cheque bearing No.759251 dated 17.03.2003 amounting to Rs.2 17.03.2003 amounting to Rs.2 cheque bearing No.759251 dated lakhs each of State Bank of India to lakhs each of State Bank of India to ndant No.2 and defendant defendant No.2 and defendant No.3, i.e. general i.e. general attorneys of defendant No.1 vendor , which were of defendant No.1 vendor, which were been encashed by them through their respective banks. Plaintiff been encashed by them through their respective banks. Plaintiff encashed by them through their respective banks. Plaintiff the ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, handed over the ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, in order balance sale consideration of his part to defendant No.4, who in order balance sale consideration of his part to defendant No.4, balance sale consideration of his part to defendant No.4, to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and to deceive the plaintiff, joined hands with defendants No.1 to 3 and executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while executed the sale deed of the whole area in his name while Hence mentioning the sale consideration price as Rs.15,74,000/-. Hence mentioning the sale consideration price as Rs.15,74,000/ mentioning the sale consideration price as Rs.15,74,000/ SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) [3 3] the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and the suit filed for refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation as well. compensation as well. 3. as well Upon notice, despite service, defendants No.1 & 2 as well Upon notice, despite service, defendants No.1 defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were as defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were defendant No.3 failed to put in appearance and as such they were on 04.05.2006 and 09.09.2005, proceeded against ex parte on 04.05.2006 and 09.09.2005, on 04.05.2006 and 09.09.2005, proceeded against However, defendant No.4 appeared and filed written respectively. However, defendant No.4 appeared and filed written However, defendant No.4 appeared and filed written respectively. the present suit was not maintainable; statement alleging therein that the present suit was not maintainable; the present suit was not maintainable; statement alleging therein that suit was was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff was plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct as he was estopped by his own act and conduct as he was It was admitted in the no cause of action to file the same. It was admitted in the no cause of action to file the same. having no cause of action to file the same. though the agreement to sell was executed by written statement that though the agreement to sell was executed by though the agreement to sell was executed by written statement that defendant No.1 through his attorneys defendant No.1 through his attorneys jointly in favour of plaintiff in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant No.4 defendant No.4 in equal proportion later plaintiff showed in equal proportion; but later plaintiff showed his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the his inability to get the same executed as he wanted to invest the money somewhere else and therefore, requested the attorneys money somewhere else and therefore, requested the money somewhere else and therefore, requested the attorneys of defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account defendant No.1 to refund the amount. It is only thereafter, on account of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of of mutual agreement, a sum of Rs.7.50 lakhs was paid by father of defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the defendant No.4/appellant to the plaintiff on 28.07.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs.4 remaining amount of Rs.4 remaining amount of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by defenda lakhs lakhs by defendant dated cheque bearing No.847884 No.4/appellant through a post-dated cheque bearing No.847884 dated cheque bearing No.847884 No.4/appellant through a post and as dated 29.12.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar and as dated 29.12.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar dated 29.12.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar such, no amount was due and no amount was due and the suit filed by plaintiff respondent the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent was liable to be dismissed with costs. was liable to be dismissed with costs No.1 was liable to be dismissed with costs SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) [4 4] 4. ntiff filed replication wherein the stand taken To this, plaintiff filed replication wherein the stand taken ntiff filed replication wherein the stand taken by defendant No.4 in his defendant No.4 in his written statement was and the written statement was controverted and the contents of the plaint were reiterated contents of the plaint were reiterated besides pleading that even the besides pleading that even the cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint cheque issued by defendant No.4 was dishonoured and a complaint s regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in this regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, s regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, s regard under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had to be filed. 1881 had to be filed 5. Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- the following issues: Whether “1. Whether the plaintiff the plaintiff is entitled is entitled to recovery of to recovery of Rs.13,50,000/- along with along with interest? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Whether plaintiff is entitled to the compensation of Rs.3 lacs? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD conduct from filing the suit? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no action to file the present 6. Whether the plaintiff has no action to file the present Whether the plaintiff has no action to file the present suit? OPD cause of 7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD Relief.” 6. the parties, the After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the After appreciation of evidence led by partly decreed the suit in favour of respondent learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of respondent partly decreed the suit in favour of respondent learned trial Court No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of No.1/ plaintiff and he was held entitled for recovery of sum of from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest Rs.7,50,000/- from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest from the appellant/ defendant No.4 along with interest Rs.7,50,000/ of the sale deed till the date of @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution of the sale deed till the date of @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution @ 9% p.a. from the date of execution SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) [5 5] institution of suit and further pendente lite institution of suit and further and future interest @ 6% pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum annum till actual realization of amount. However, the learned trial till actual realization of amount. However, the learned trial Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. Court held that Rs.4 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ defendant No.4 preferred Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/ first defendant No.4 preferred first appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2016 01.08.2016. Importantly, against the rejection o Importantly, against the rejection khs, of his claim qua Rs.4 lakhs, was also separate appeal was filed by plaintiff, however, the same was also separate appeal was filed by plaintiff, however, the same separate appeal was filed by plaintiff, however, the same dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide same judgment and decree. and decree. 7. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for app passed by the Courts below, le ellant/defendant arned counsel for appellant/defendant since plaintiff/ respondent No.1 himself resiled to No.4 submits that since plaintiff/ respondent No.1 himself resiled to since plaintiff/ respondent No.1 himself resiled to No.4 submits that perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery perform his part of the contract, thus, the suit filed by him for recovery of Rs.13,50,000/- deserved to be dismissed. of Rs.13,50,000/ In the alternate, it was to be dismissed. In the alternate, it was appellant had already paid the amount due also pointed out that the appellant had already paid the amount due appellant had already paid the amount due also pointed out that the to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the to the plaintiff and the same was duly proved on record from the deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 deposition of defendant No.4 and his father having appeared as DW1 and DW4, respectively. and DW4, respectively. 8. . 1- On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No that the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff submits that the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of that the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff submit the plaintiff while plaintiff while holding him entitled to the entitled to the recovery of Rs.7,50,000/ 7,50,000/- from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is from defendant No. 4 alongwith interest and the present appeal is thus liable to be dismissed. thus liable to be dismissed. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) [6 6] 9. ng heard learned counsel for the parties and gone Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone ng heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book / records, I find no substance in the through the paper-book / records, I find no substance in the book / records, I find no substance in the through the paper submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-defendant No. 4. submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant 10. nce the sale In the considered opinion of this Court, once the sale In the considered opinion of this Court, o avour of defendant No.4 regarding the entire deed was executed in favour of defendant No.4 regarding the entire avour of defendant No.4 regarding the entire deed was executed in f and the factum of having received part consideration from land, and the factum of having received part consideration from and the factum of having received part consideration from and the factum of having received part consideration from plaintiff was admitted then burden to prove the plaintiff was admitted of return of the to prove the factum of return of the amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral amount contributed by the plaintiff shifted upon him. Except the oral deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as deposition of defendant No.4 himself as DW1 and that of his father as DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the DW4, no documentary evidence so as to establish the source of the produced on record. Even no receipt money paid to the plaintiff was produced on record. Even no receipt produced on record. Even no receipt money paid to the plaintiff was of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such of the amount paid to the plaintiff was produced in evidence. In such the concurrent findings of fact based upon evidence circumstances, the concurrent findings of fact based upon evidence the concurrent findings of fact based upon evidence circumstances, by the Courts below while holding available on record was recorded by the Courts below while holding by the Courts below while holding available on record that defendant No.4 failed to prove the that defendan payment of Rs.7.50 t No.4 failed to prove the cash payment of Rs.7.50 dated 01.01.2004 lakhs to the plaintiff after getting the sale deed dated 01.01.2004 lakhs to the plaintiff after getting the sale deed lakhs to the plaintiff after getting the sale deed (Ex.P11) executed in his absence, thus, (Ex.P11) misreading or thus, there being no misreading or of defendant No.4 and his father- misinterpretation of the statements of defendant No.4 and his father of defendant No.4 and his father misinterpretation of the statement Dalbir Singh; no interference is called for on Dalbir Singh ed for on such finding of fact. 11. no question of law, much less In view of the above, no question of law, much less no question of law, much less as there substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal; as there substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal with is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court , the the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5745 5745-2016 (O&M) [7 7] 12. y, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if an
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. .2025 10.09.2025 sanjay (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.10 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document