CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH  [APPELLANT]  Vs.  MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.   [RESPONDENTS]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2991 OF 2024

(2JB, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and PRASANNA B. VARALE JJ., delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.)

Facts: The appeal filed by the appellant presently before us challenges the Judgement and order dated 03.10.2019, passed in a second appeal by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The impugned Judgement of the High Court has reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court and has consequently dismissed the suit of specific performance filed by the appellant-plaintiff, although a partial relief was granted to the appellant by return of the earnest money to the appellant, with interest.

Issue: Whether the present appeal is maintainable in the facts of the case?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

On behalf of the appellant, we have heard learned counsel Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate on behalf of respondents 1-2. Though service by way of publication 9 was done for respondents 3 and 4, they have not entered appearance. Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff would on the other hand submit that the High Court committed a grave error in reversing the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The transaction qua the suit property was executed by the respondents after the appellant obtained an order 10 of temporary injunction from the Trial Court, hence the entire transactions would be hit by lis pendens given under Section 52 of the Act of 1882. Even otherwise, the High Court has upheld the findings of the Courts below that the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant as well as the acceptance of earnest money was duly proved.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv for the respondents/ defendants has relied on the findings of the High Court to submit that respondents 1-2 made due enquiries about the suit property, however, the revenue records did not indicate that another agreement to sell was executed in favour of the appellant. Further, it is argued that PW-7 had never informed them about the injunction order passed in favour of the appellant. Thus, they are the bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and possession has been taken over by the respondents 1-2 since 2004 subsequent to which, they have renovated the land and installed a pump there as well

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “the Judgement dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 2746 of 2012 is set aside. The decree in favour of the appellant is upheld. The respondent no. 3 is directed to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000 from the appellant and execute the agreement to sell dated 10.11.2002 in favour of the appellant, within 3 months from today.”