In RSA-3334-2019 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC affirms Trial Court’s judgment in suit for possession by way of specific performance holding that plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove his readiness & willingness to perform his part of contract
Justice Alka Sarin [27-02-2023]

 

Read Order: RAJBIR SINGH VS SURAJ BHAN 

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 7, 2023:  Returning of pure findings of fact by the Courts below call for no interference by this Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed while dismissing an appeal in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract with consequential relief of permanent injunction. 

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Alka Sarin dismissed the instant second appeal by observing that  there was  no illegality and infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

The total sale consideration was agreed at Rs.4,13,656 . The plaintiff-appellant averred in the plaint that on the target date, the plaintiff-appellant was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Karnal along with the balance sale consideration and other ancillary expenses of stamp duty and registration fees etc., however, the defendant-respondent did not turn up to perform his part of the contract. 

It was further the case that after the target date, the plaintiff-appellant contacted the defendant-respondent a number of times and offered the balance sale consideration and requested for execution of the sale deed, however, to no avail. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On notice, the defendant respondent appeared and admitted in the written statement that the agreement to sell was executed with respect to a plot. 

However, the case was that the plaintiff-appellant was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and did not come forward with the balance sale consideration. It was further the case set up by the defendant-respondent that he remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar and waited for the plaintiff-appellant to come, however, he did not show up. 

The Trial Court through  judgment and decree January 15, 2016 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff appellant which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated January 9, 2019.  Hence, the present regular second appeal was filed. 

After considering the submissions, the Court noted the case set up by the defendant-respondent that the plaintiff-appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Both the Courts below had concurrently found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff-appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The target date in the present case was July 10, 2006. 

After the target date, no effort was made by the plaintiff-appellant till June 5, 2009  when the Panchayat was said to have been convened to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant-respondent, the Court noted.

In furtherance, the Court also noted that rather, the plaintiff-appellant failed to perform his part of the contract despite being called to do so through two legal notices served upon him by the defendant-respondent.

In view of the above, the Court failed to find any illegality and infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, stemmed in the present case. Pure findings of fact have been returned by both the Courts below which call for no interference by this Court,  the Court further observed.

Thus, the appeal was accordingly dismissed.