9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f paid a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant at the time of the execution of the disputed agreement. It is not in dispute that the stamp papers were not purchased by the appellantdefendant and rather Amarjeet Singh was the person who purchased the same. The document was typed out in Gurmukhi language and the photostat copy thereof is available on record. A visual overview of the disputed agreement would show that it runs into three pages. The signature of the respondent-plaintiff, and the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant are marked only on the last page thereof. The first and second pages of the agreement, do not bear the signature of the respondent-plaintiff or the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant. There exist significant blank spaces at the foot of the first two pages below the transcription typed out on these two pages. As per the disputed agreement, the appellant-defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the respondent-plaintiff @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per Killa, which was just about half of the market rate of the land at the relevant point of time, as admitted by the respondent-plaintiff. Going by the rate as fixed in the disputed agreement, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aud and concoction - there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2013 rendered by the trial Court, judgment dated 20th March, 2017 passed by the First Appellate Court and the judgment dated 25th April, 2018 rendered by the High Court suffer from perversity on the face of the record and hence, the same cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed. - PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA And SANDEEP MEHTA , JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sahil Patel , Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv. Ms. Divyansha Gajallewar, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Rashika Swarup , Adv JUDGMENT Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 25th April, 2018 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the second appeal RSA No. 4577 of 2017(O M) preferred by the appellant-defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stipulated that if on the said date, the appellant-defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed then, he would become liable to return the earnest money to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- along with penalty of equal amount, totalling to Rs.32,00,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff. Even after receiving the money and the penalty, the respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to file a suit for getting the sale deed executed in his favour. This disputed agreement was attested by two witnesses namely, Major Singh (PW-4) and Balwinder Singh (PW-2). 7. It was also averred in the plaint that a part of the property was under mortgage with respondent No. 2 i.e. The State Bank of Patiala. The respondent-plaintiff claimed that he reached the Office of Joint Registrar, Khem Karan on the date stipulated in the disputed agreement i.e. 19th September, 2008 and remained present there from 09:00 am to 05:00 pm waiting for the appellantdefendant to arrive. However, the appellant-defendant did not turn up to get the sale deed registered in favour of the respondentplaintiff, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the agreement. As such, the respondent-plaintiff got an affidavit of attendance att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery of symbolic actual possession of above land to the plaintiff with consequential relief of permanent injunction thus, restraining the defendant no. 1 from alienating the suit land with anybody in any way, except the plaintiff and also restraining the defendant no. 1 forever from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from land measuring 30 Kanals 8 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 31//14/1 min (1-0), 20, (7-16), 21 (8-32)/715 (7-12), 327//17 (7-0) situated at Village Amrike, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran as per Jamabandi for the year 2002 - 03 and also restraining the defendant no. 1 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the same. In the alternative, suit for recovery of Rs.19,00,000/- detailed as follow: a) Amount of earnest money paid on 7.5.2007 at the time of execution of agreement i.e., Rs.16,00,000/-. b) Amount of damage and compensation for breach of contract dated 7.5.2007 of Rs. 3,00,000/-, totalling to Rs. 19,00,000/- be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 with costs. Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled to that may also kindly be granted in favour of plaintiff. 9. The appellant-defendant, upon being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecific performance of agreement to sell? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled in the alternative to recover Rs.19,00,000/- from the defendant no. 1? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 were owner/cosharer in possession to the extent of his share in the disputed property? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit? OPP. 8. Whether the cause of action arisen to the plaintiff for filing of present suit? OPP. 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPP. 10. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD. 11. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 12. Relief. 12. The issue No.2(supra) regarding entitlement of the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of the disputed agreement and the affiliated issue No. 5(supra) for the relief of permanent injunction were decided against the respondentplaintiff. However, issue No.3(supra) regarding the alternative relief seeking recovery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- with pendente lite interest @ 9% per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum to the respondent-plaintiff. 15. As noted above, the first appeal as well as the second appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court stood rejected by the First Appellate Court and the High Court, respectively vide judgments dated 20th March, 2017 and 25th April, 2018. These judgments are subjected to challenge in this appeal by special leave. 16. Shri Ankit Goel, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, vehemently and fervently contended that the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, though concurrent, are perverse on the face of the record and thus, it is a fit case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 17. To buttress the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, drew the Court s attention to the following excerpts from the cross-examination of the respondent-plaintiff (PW1): - Amarjit Singh S/o Massa Singh is my real brother. He is running a commission agent shop at Amarkot, and the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession of suit land was given to the respondentplaintiff, it was admitted by the respondent-plaintiff in his evidence that the possession of suit land was not handed over to him on the basis of the disputed agreement. d. The respondent-plaintiff admitted that he used to file Income Tax returns being an employee of the Punjab Government, but he did not show the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- in the Income Tax return. e. He also admitted that he had not obtained any permission from the department to purchase the suit land. f. The respondent-plaintiff admitted that the amount in question was not withdrawn from any bank and the currency notes used for the transaction were lying in his house. g. He also admitted that the market rate of the land in Village Cheema Khurd was around Rs.9-10 lakhs per Killa. h. He denied the suggestion given on behalf of the appellantdefendant that his brother Amarjeet Singh had procured the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant on blank stamp papers by fraud. 19. Learned counsel urged that the admissions as appearing in the testimony of the respondent-plaintiff, completely discredit the version regarding the execution of the disputed agreement. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose, J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar, AIR 1943 Nag 117 Para 43). 4. Thus, evidently, the settled position is that interference with the concurrent findings in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is to be made sparingly, that too when the judgment impugned is absolutely perverse. On appreciation of evidence another view is possible also cannot be a reason for substitution of a plausible view taken and confirmed. We will now, bearing in mind the settled position, proceed to consider as to whether the said appellate power invites invocation in the case on hand. ( emphasis supplied ) 24. This Court in Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P., (2022) 8 SCC 253 while dealing with its p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecital in the agreement, the respondent-plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant at the time of the execution of the disputed agreement. 27. At this stage, a very crucial fact which is noticeable from the disputed agreement needs to be highlighted. It is not in dispute that the stamp papers were not purchased by the appellantdefendant and rather Amarjeet Singh was the person who purchased the same. The document was typed out in Gurmukhi language and the photostat copy thereof is available on record. A visual overview of the disputed agreement would show that it runs into three pages. The signature of the respondent-plaintiff, and the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant are marked only on the last page thereof. The first and second pages of the agreement, do not bear the signature of the respondent-plaintiff or the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant. There exist significant blank spaces at the foot of the first two pages below the transcription typed out on these two pages. These observations give rise to a strong inference fortifying the contention of the appellant-defendant s counsel that the thumb impression of the appellant-defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le a case in the civil Court for the execution of the sale deed. Simultaneously, it was agreed that if the balance amount was not paid by the respondentplaintiff, the earnest money would be liable to be forfeited by the appellant-defendant. 31. As per the averments made in the plaint, the respondentplaintiff did not even once, during the aforesaid period of 16 months, approach the appellant-defendant for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement. He claimed that he straight away proceeded to the Sub-Registrar s office on 19th September, 2008 and remained present there from 09:00 am to 05:00 pm waiting for the appellant-defendant to turn up and get the sale deed registered. However, the appellant-defendant failed to appear at the office of the Sub-Registrar on the scheduled date. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff did not give any advance intimation to the appellant-defendant imploring him to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed on the scheduled date i.e. 19th September, 2008 or anytime thereafter. Instead, he directly proceeded to file the subject suit in the month of December, 2008 wherein, alternative prayers, one for the execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistrar. 35. The respondent-plaintiff admitted that he did not seek permission from his department before entering into the agreement for purchase of property having high value. It is not the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he and the appellantdefendant were on such close terms that he would readily agree to give cash loan to the appellant-defendant without any security. 36. The factors enumerated above, are sufficient for this Court to conclude that the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding the execution of the disputed agreement; the alleged payment of Rs. 16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant on 7th May, 2007 and the alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the purported exercise of getting the sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement is nothing but a sheer piece of fraud and concoction. 37. These vital factual aspects were totally glossed over by the Courts below while deciding the suit, the first appeal and the second appeal. In these facts and circumstances, we find it to be a fit case to exercise our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere with the impugned ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
