Satnam Singh vs Satnam Singh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8037 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(CIVIL) NO. 3264 OF 2010]

SATNAM SINGH ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SATNAM SINGH ..... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1) The appellant (original defendant) Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Mehnga Ram

has filed the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the

impugned judgement and decree dated 27.09.2008 passed by the High Court

of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Regular Second Appeal no. 3174 of

2008, whereby the High Court while dismissing the Second Appeal had

confirmed the judgement and decree dated 06.08.2008 passed by the Addl.

Signature Not Verified District Judge, Nawanshahr (the Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal no. Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.04.26 17:50:12 IST Reason: 49 of 2007. The Appellate Court had confirmed the judgement and decree

dated 14.02.2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (SD) Nawanshahr (the Trial

1 Court) in Civil Suit no. 295 of 2006, by which the suit of the respondent

(original plaintiff) Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Inder Singh seeking specific

performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.06.2000 in respect of the suit

land and possession thereof was decreed.

2) The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking specific performance of

the agreement dated 09.06.2000 against the appellant-defendant alleging

inter-alia that an agreement was executed by the defendant on 09.06.2000 in

respect of the suit land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas as described in the plaint,

for consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre and for total consideration of Rs.

3,54,687.50/-. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 55,000/- by way of earnest money

and had agreed to pay the balance amount within one year of the agreement.

It was further alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to

perform his part of agreement and had approached the defendant offering the

balance amount of sale consideration, however, the defendant did not pay any

heed to it. The plaintiff, thereafter, had served a legal notice and called upon

the defendant to remain present in the office of Sub/Joint Registrar,

Nawanshahr to perform his part of contract, however, the defendant did not

turn up and hence, the suit was filed.

3) The appellant-defendant had resisted the suit by filing the written statement

contending inter-alia that he had never executed any agreement to sell in

favour of the plaintiff. According to him, he had taken a loan of Rs. 27,000/-

from the plaintiff and the document was prepared only by way of security

2 towards the said loan amount, which was misused by the plaintiff. He also

contended that there was no legal notice served to him by the plaintiff prior to

filing of the suit.

4) The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the same was confirmed by

the Appellate Court as well as by the High Court, as stated hereinabove. It is

pertinent to note that after the dismissal of the Appeal by the Appellate Court,

the respondent-plaintiff had filed the Execution proceedings seeking

execution of the decree passed by the Trial Court, and pursuant to the order

passed by the Executing Court, the sale deed was got executed on 23rd

September, 2008 through the Court Commissioner, in favour of the

respondent-plaintiff on his depositing the balance amount of consideration of

Rs. 2,99,700/- vide the challan no. 21, SBI, Nawanshahr. A copy of the said

sale deed along with translated version in English has been produced on record

by the respondent-plaintiff.

5) The Ld. Advocate Vikas Mahajan appearing on behalf of the appellant, while

not disputing the execution of the sale deed through Court Commissioner in

favour of the respondent-plaintiff, submitted that all the three Courts had

utterly failed to appreciate that the respondent-plaintiff was never ready and

willing to perform his part of contract. According to him, the Courts below

had also failed to consider the hardship that would have been caused to the

appellant, while exercising the discretion in favour of the respondent. He

further submitted that the market value of the suit land is approximately Rs.

3 22 lac per acre as per the circle rate prevailing as on today, and that the amount

deposited by the respondent-plaintiff towards the sale consideration is too

meagre an amount as compared to the today’s market value. However, the Ld.

Advocate Ms. Kusum Chaudhary for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that

there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the three Courts in favour

of the respondent, the Court may not interfere with the same, more particularly

when the sale deed has already been executed through the Court

Commissioner in the execution proceeding in 2008, although the possession

has not been handed over by the appellant to the respondent. She also

submitted that the respondent is ready to make payment of reasonable amount

over and above the amount deposited by him towards sale consideration, as

the Court may deem fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case.

6) Since, the three Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of facts

in favour of the respondent-plaintiff with regard to the respondent having

proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, and since

the Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of the respondent,

directing the appellant to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent, on

the respondent depositing the balance sale consideration, and since the

respondent had deposited the amount as directed by the trial court, before the

execution of sale deed through the Court Commissioner in the Execution

proceedings, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned

4 judgement passed by the High Court. Even otherwise, the Ld. Advocate for

the appellant has miserably failed to point out any illegality or perversity in

the impugned order passed by the High Court confirming the judgements and

decrees passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court. The present Appeal

therefore deserves to be dismissed.

7) However, considering the fact that the agreement in question was executed in

the year 2000 and the sale deed was got executed through Court

Commissioner in the year 2008, and that this appeal is being decided in 2022,

the Court deems it proper to direct the respondent-plaintiff to pay a reasonable

amount over and above the amount already deposited by him towards the sale

consideration. Though the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has urged that the

present market value of the suit land is Rs. 22 lac per acre as per the circle

rate, and therefore the respondent be directed to pay accordingly, the said

submission cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that the appellant had

not handed over the possession of the said suit land to the respondent though

the sale deed was got executed through Court Commissioner as back as in

2008, and the respondent had also deposited the balance amount of the sale

consideration as directed by the Trial Court. Therefore, considering the

totality of the circumstances that respondent had paid Rs. 55,000/- on the day

of execution of the agreement in question and subsequently had deposited Rs.

2,99,700/- on 13.04.2007 vide challan no. 21, SBI, Nawanshahr, the Court is

of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the respondent is

5 directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 6 lakhs (six lakhs) before the Trial

Court within four weeks from today. The respondent is accordingly directed

to make such deposit. On such deposit being made, the appellant shall be at

liberty to withdraw the said amount. He shall also be at liberty to withdraw

the amount of Rs. 2,99,700/- with interest if accrued any, deposited by the

respondent-plaintiff, if not withdrawn by the appellant so far. On such deposit

of six lakhs being made by the respondent as directed by this Court, the

appellant shall hand over vacant and peaceful physical possession of the suit

land as described in the plaint to the respondent-plaintiff forthwith. The sale

deed dated 23rd September 2008 executed through the Court Commissioner in

favour of the respondent shall stand modified accordingly. It is clarified that

if the appellant fails to hand over the possession of the suit land as directed by

this Court, the respondent shall be at liberty to take recourse to law as may be

permissible.

8) The present appeal stands dismissed subject to the aforesaid directions.

………………………. J.

[AJAY RASTOGI]

…..................................J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] NEW DELHI 26.04.2022

6