Regular Second Appeal No. 27 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 27 of 2009. (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.1.2009 *** Tarif Singh .. Appellant VS. Smt. Chandrawal & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.11.1999 with the averments that Ran Singh (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) entered into an agreement to sell his land measuring 8 kanals for a sum of Rs.90,000/-, out of which he received Rs.62,000/- as earnest money. However, Ran Singh failed to perform his part of the contract, leading to the institution of present suit by the appellant-plaintiff for issuance of a direction to the defendant Ran singh to perform his part of the contract by getting the sale-deed executed in his favour. Before the written statement in the matter could be filed Ran Singh died and his LRs i.e. respondents were brought on record, who filed written statement denying the execution of the said agreement by Ran Singh and they further pleaded that since Ran Singh was not absolute owner of the suit property, which is not partitioned, the said agreement cannot be enforced. The learned trial court, on appraisal of the evidence produced on record, held due execution of the said agreement dated 30.11.1999 but concluded that it was a loan transaction, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to Regular Second Appeal No. 27 of 2009 2 get refund of the amount paid along with interest @ 12% per annum. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court below, which was dismissed. Hence, this regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The grouse of the plaintiff-appellant is that despite having not made any prayer for the refund of the amount, the Courts below have erred in ordering for the same instead of granting the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.11.1999 by ordering for execution of the sale-deed in his favour and reliance has been placed upon Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. The contention is meritless in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In a suit for specific performance the Court has vide discretion in granting relief to the party, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and Court is not incapable of granting relief as prayed in the suit, in the strict definition. The sheet anchor in this case is the agreement dated 30.11.1999. The tenor of the agreement indicates that the very basis of the agreement was in fact a loan transaction by virtue of which Ran Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents had borrowed a sum of Rs.62,000/- with the assurance to return the same by 19.5.2000 and in case of failure to do so, he has to get the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of remaining amount of sale consideration. In other words, had the said amount was returned by Ran Singh within the stipulated time, the said agreement would have come to an end. Thus, the sequence of events suggests that the purpose of execution of said agreement was procurement of the amount, advanced to Ran Singh by coercing him to return the same within the stipulated period, as has been rightly held by the two Courts below. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below in ordering for refund of the amount along with interest instead of granting the relief of execution of sale-deed in favour of plaintiff-appellant is either illegal or perverse. Regular Second Appeal No. 27 of 2009 3 Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than that of concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 8,2009 Jiten