1) Rohtash Kuma umar since deceased through LRs & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 RSA-15011-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 28.03.2025 Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) Rohtash Kuma umar since deceased through LRs & Others ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) Sat Parkash & & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Adv for the appellants. Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** The plaintiffs are he in second appeal against the in s concurrent jud t judgments and decrees of the le by e learned Courts below whereby the suit filed
Legal Reasoning
filed by the plaintiffs for declarat of laration, specific performance of agreement d t dated 14.06.2005, and mand andatory en injunction has been dismissed by b by both the Courts below. 2. Brief facts of the case as are s perthe appellant/plaintiff are that the partie arties had entered into an Agreeme in ement to Sell dated 14.06.2005 in respect of the f the suit land as described in the ion the plaint. The sale consideration amount mutu utually decided between the part of parties was Rs.13,86,000/- out of which the plai plaintiff had paid Rs.3 lakh as earne ed arnest money which was received by the defend fendants No.1 and 2. Target date fo ed te for execution of the Sale Deed was 14.10.200 .2005. On 14.10.2005, plaintiffs wer - were present in the office of Sub- Registrar with with the balance sale consideration ad tion.However, the defendants had got their prese resence marked before the Sub-Reg t 5 Registrar on 14.10.2005 only at 5 SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) pm. Plaintiffs tiffs were always ready and willing Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) he lling to perform their part of the agreement. Le t. Legal notice dated 21.01.2008 wa nts 8 was also sent to the defendants through their heir counsel. But no satisfactory re er, ry reply was received. Thereafter, the defendant dants have sold the suit land to def ale defendants No.3 and 4 vide Sale Deed No.437 437 dated 21.12.2005 in respect A ect of which mutation No.8968A dated 22.01.2 01.2006 and mutation No.9366 date ed dated 19.01.2006 was sanctioned in favour of of the defendants No.3 and 4 tly, d 4 respectively. Subsequently, defendants No s No.3 and 4 also further sold the su 78 he suit land vide Sale Deed No.578 dated 24.03.2 03.2006 to defendant No.5 in respe ers spect of which mutation numbers 9672 and 916 9163 both dated 30.06.2006 wa he was sanctioned in favour of the defendant No No.5. Accordingly, a declaration w ale on was sought that the said Sale Deeds are illeg illegal, null and void. 3. It is submitted by learned c
Legal Reasoning
at ed counsel for the appellants that it is not dispu disputed that the plaintiffs had du - d duly appeared before the Sub- Registrar on 1 on 14.10.2005 to get the Sale Dee as Deed registered. However, it was the defendant dant who had appeared only at 5 ed at 5 pm due to which Sale Deed could not be r be registered. It is submitted that he hat the only ground on which the Courts below low have non-suited the plaintiffs to iffs is that plaintiff was unable to show that he t he had balance sale consideratio ed ation on the date fixed. Learned counsel conte ontends that it was not incum to cumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate t ate the availability of funds. In supp ed support of his contention, learned counsel relies lies upon judgment of Madras High & High Court in “Lakshmi Ammal & SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Others Vs. Ge . Gejaraj (died) Kuppuswamy & O Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) # & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 1980705; judgment of Hon’ble Supreme jud eme Court Vs. in “Basavaraj Vs. Padmavathi” hi” Law Finder Doc ID # 210120 in 1204; judgment of this Court in “Harish Kuma umar & Others Vs. Mohinder Singh ID ingh & Others” Law Finder doc ID # 1141903; an and “Bhag Ram Vs. Pala Singh & # h & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 38344. Ld. Cou . Counsel refers in particular to judg to judgment of Bhag Ram (supra) to submit that it at it has been held therein that as ific t as per Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act “...it “...it is not essential for the plaintiff or intiff to tender to the defendant or to deposit in C in Court any money except when so t is en so directed by the Court...”. It is accordingly c ly contended that the plaintiff to tiff could be called upon to demonstrate a ate availability of funds only upon is pon a direction of the court. It is submitted tha that therefore, the sole ground of for d of the learned Courts below for non-suiting th g the plaintiff to the effect that th ve t the plaintiff had failed to prove possession of n of balance sale consideration, is no is not made out. 4. 5. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the appellants. I have heard learned cou nd counsel for the appellants and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 6. I find no merit in the sole of ole submission made on behalf of the appellant llants. The above contention of a of the plaintiff is based on a misreading of g of the above said judgments. Mo me Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a sub subsequent and most recent judgm G. dgment in “R. Shama Naik Vs. G. Srinivasiah” L h” Law Finder Doc ID # 2670489 as 489 decided on 28.11.2024, has SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) categorically h lly held that readiness and willingn Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) a) llingness is to be proven from; a) availability of y of funds; b) presence marked in t of in the Tehsil. Relevant extract of the said judgm dgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court urt is as follows: “11. There is a fine distincti nd inction between readiness and willingness to perform the contr are ontract. Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific cific performance. 12. While readiness means the to the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would on, ould include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct duct of the plaintiff.” 7. The relevant findings as re of as recorded in Paras 20 and 21 of the judgment ent and decree dated 12.12.2017 rial 2017 passed by the learned trial Court are as as follows: - “20. Thus, the moot question wh the n which has to be decided in the present suit is readiness and willi an willingness of the parties. It is an admitted fact that defendants no uit ts no. 1 and 2 further sold the suit property to defendants no. 3 and the and 4, who had further sold the same to defendant no. 5. The pla to e plaintiff no 2 Vikas stepped into the witness box as PW2 and was c ho was cross-examined at length who stated at one point of time that uit that he is in possession of the suit property but thereafter he took s he ok somersault and stated that he is not in possession of the suit pro nly t property. The plaintiffs have only examined this witness to prove th ess ve their readiness and willingness but he has contradicted himself w ion self with regard to the possession of the suit land. Also, there is not at is nothing on the file to show that the plaintiffs had balance sale co ed le consideration on the date fixed for getting the sale deed execut fo bal xecuted and it is only the verbal SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) assertions. The document Ex. P1 Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) by x. P10 is the application given by the plaintiffs in which they had ad of ad admitted that the possession of the said property was not given to 10 en to them. The document Ex. P10 itself shows that the sale deed co me ed could not be executed as some dispute arose between the an he parties Merely getting an attendance marked in the offic ot office of Sub-Registrar does not prove the readiness and willingn be illingness as the same has to be supported by other evidence also the also and the oral evidence of the plaintiffs goes against them and d nd does not support their case. 21. Also, the defendants no. 1 a ey . 1 and 2 have pleaded that they were in need of money and hence the ence had sold the said land to the plaintiffs but the sale deed was ey was not executed and hence they sold the land further to defenda her endants no. 3 and 4, who further sold the same to defendant no. 5. nts o. 5. The plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2 are local and interes ing terested in the suit property being buyers and sellers but still the pla or e plaintiff never filed any suit nor approached any forum when th by n the suit property was sold by defendants no. 1 and 2 to de nd defendants no. 3 and 4 and thereafter, they further sold the s his the same to defendant no. 5. This very conduct of the plaintiffs goes ot goes against them as they cannot be mere spectators of the sale of t e of the land to someone else. 8. In view of the above un ed undisputed and uncontroverted facts and findi findings, the present appeal is dismi ismissed. 9. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 28.03.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: Page 6 of 66 (cid:1) SUNENA 2025.04.02 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)