R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 09, 2010 Inderjeet Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Narinder Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Sahni, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 and R. S. A. No. 3215 of 2010 both titled Inderjeet Singh and others vs. Narinder Singh. These two appeals have arisen out of two suits. One suit was filed by Charan Singh (since deceased and represented by Narinder Singh – respondent as his legal representative) against the appellants, whereas the other suit was filed by the appellants against Charan Singh. It is undisputed that Charan Singh, vide agreement dated R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 2 25.05.1994, agreed to sell the suit land measuring 11 kanals 19 marlas to the appellants @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and received Rs.80,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed up to 31.12.1994. Appellants' version is that on 21.12.1994, on the demand of Charan Singh, the appellants paid further amount of Rs.50,000/- to him and endorsement to this effect was made on the back of the agreement and date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 10.07.1996 and possession of the suit land was also delivered to the appellants at that time. Accordingly, on 10.07.1996, the appellants remained present in the office of Sub Registrar with requisite amount to get the sale deed executed and registered in terms of agreement and endorsement, but Charan Singh failed to turn up and committed breach of the agreement. Accordingly, appellants sought specific performance of the impugned agreement to sell. On the other hand, Charan Singh alleged that on 29.12.1994, he was brought to the office of Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed of the suit land in terms of agreement dated 25.05.1994, but the appellants and their father Mohan Singh, in connivance with scribe and attesting witnesses, fraudulently got executed sale deed of other 16 kanals 10 marlas land of the plaintiff in favour of appellants' mother Jaswinder Kaur. Charan Singh challenged the said sale deed by filing a separate suit. Alleged endorsement on the back of the agreement is false and fabricated. Charan Singh issued notice dated 18.07.1995 to the appellants for getting sale deed executed R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 3 within 15 days in terms of agreement. The appellants sent reply dated 26.07.1995 to the notice and failed to get the sale deed executed. Charan Singh attended the office of Sub Registrar on 01.08.1995, but the appellants did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement. Consequently, Charan Singh sought relief of possession of suit land from the appellants. Charan Singh, in his written statement in the suit filed by the appellants, pleaded similar version as pleaded by him in his own suit. Similarly, the appellants, in their written statement in the suit filed by Charan Singh, pleaded similar version as pleaded by them in their own suit. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005, decreed the suit filed by Charan Singh for possession of the suit land and vide separate judgment and decree of the even date, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants for specific performance of the agreement. First appeals preferred by the appellants in both the suits separately have been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide separate judgments and decrees dated 08.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, appellants have preferred the instant second appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that stamp papers for sale deed dated 29.12.1994 relating to 16 kanals 10 marlas R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 4 other land were purchased by Charan Singh himself for sale consideration of the said land and not for sale consideration of the suit land, for which stamp papers of different amount were required. The contention is not sufficient to dislodge the claim of Charan Singh. In the instant appeals, the dispute relates to agreement dated 25.05.1994. Even after Charan Singh detected alleged fraud in execution of sale deed dated 29.12.1994 relating to other land, Charan Singh was still ready and willing to execute sale deed of the suit land in favour of the appellants and for this purpose, Charan Singh even served notice dated 18.07.1995 on the appellants requiring them to get the sale deed executed in terms of agreement dated 25.05.1994, but the appellants themselves failed to get the sale deed executed. Charan Singh even remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 01.08.1995 pursuant to the aforesaid notice, but the appellants did not turn up. It is, thus, apparent that the appellants were not always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and consequently, they are not entitled to relief of specific performance. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that date for execution of the sale deed stood extended till 10.07.1996 and therefore, the appellants were not obliged to get the sale deed executed in July/August 1995 and consequently, there was no breach of agreement by the appellants. The contention appears to be forceful on first blush, but the contention is devoid of merit. Charan Singh disputed the endorsement dated 21.12.1994 R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 5 allegedly executed by him for extension of date of execution of sale deed till 10.07.1996 and receipt of further amount of Rs.50,000/- through the said endorsement. The appellants' claim is that while executing the said endorsement on 21.12.1994, Charan Singh also delivered possession of the suit land to the appellants. However, the endorsement regarding extension of date of execution of sale deed till 10.07.1996 appears to be highly unnatural. Even after alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- to Charan Singh on 21.12.1994 through the said endorsement, the appellants were yet to pay balance sale consideration of a little less than Rs.1,00,000/-. There is no reason why Charan Singh, even after delivery of possession of the suit land to the appellants, would extend the date of execution of sale deed by more than 1½ years, particularly when Charan Singh was allegedly in need of money. By the alleged endorsement dated 21.12.1994, Charan Singh was deprived of the possession of the suit land as well as deprived of receipt of balance sale consideration for almost 1½ years. There was no earthly reason why Charan Singh would have agreed to such an arrangement for modification of the original agreement dated 25.05.1994 to his own detriment. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the appellants did not have requisite money to get the sale deed executed after payment of Rs.50,000/- vide endorsement dated 21.12.1994 and after getting the sale deed dated 29.12.1994 executed in favour of their mother R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 6 relating to the other 16 kanals 10 marlas land. No such contention has been raised by the appellants in their pleadings. Even otherwise, this contention would rather show that the appellants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and they did not have requisite money for the same. Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence and arrived at concurrent finding against the appellants. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeals. Suit filed by Charan Singh for setting aside sale deed dated 29.12.1994 in favour of appellants' mother relating to other 16 kanals 10 marlas land has already been decreed and the said decree has been upheld up to this Court in second appeal. The appellants filed the suit for specific performance on 14.08.1996 on the plea that date for execution of sale deed stood extended till 10.07.1996. However, after Charan Singh had sent notice dated 18.07.1995 to the appellants and after Charan Singh had even filed his suit against the appellants on 22.07.1995, there was no occasion for the appellants to have waited for more than one year till 14.08.1996 for filing suit for specific performance because cause of action to seek the said relief arose immediately after Charan Singh sent notice dated 18.07.1995 to the appellants and also when Charan Singh filed suit for possession of the suit land on 22.07.1995. For this added reason as well, the appellants cannot be held entitled to relief of specific performance. R. S. A. No. 3187 of 2010 7 No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeals. Both the appeals are found to be bereft of any merit and are accordingly dismissed in limine. September 09, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE