IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.4318 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.3.2009 Raj Pal. ....... Appellant through Shri B.S.Rana,Advocate. Versus Jiwan Lal and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 22.3.2007 and 3.10.2008 passed respectively the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Faridabad (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was partly decreed and the appeal of the defendant-appellant was dismissed with costs. Respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction as a consequential relief thereof. It was pleaded that an agreement dated 27.3.1995 was executed by the appellant in favour of respondent no.1 to sell the land detailed therein for a total consideration of Rs.1,24,500/-. An earnest money of Rs.47,000/- was R.S.A.No.4318 of 2008 -2- .... stated to have been paid on the same day vide a receipt duly executed and signed by him. The balance sale price of Rs.77,500/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed which was to be executed on or before 20.6.1995. However, the appellant failed to perform his part of agreement and instead, he executed a sale deed in favour of defendant-respondent nos.2 to 4 qua the same property on 23.6.1995, compelling respondent no.1 to file the instant suit on 12.6.1998 for enforcement of the agreement to sell and for declaration of sale deed executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 4 as null & void and not binding on his rights. The appellant filed his written statement controverting the averments made by respondent no.1. He denied the execution of agreement to sell in favour of respondent no.1 and also denied that he ever received any amount by way of earnest money. It was pleaded that he had, in fact, agreed to mortgage the suit land with respondent no.1 against a loan of Rs.47000/- of his uncle -Bish Ram which was to be returned along with interest. The plea of fraud was also taken. Respondent nos.2 to 4 also filed their separate written statement and pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers without any knowledge of the agreement to sell existing in favour of respondent no.1 and supported the sale in their favour. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether defendant no.1 is owner to the extent of 3/10 share of the agricultural land measuring 40 kanals 11 marlas as detailed and described in para no.1 of the plaint?OPP R.S.A.No.4318 of 2008 -3- .... 2. Whether defendant no.1 agreed to sell the aforementioned land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,24,500/- on 27.3.95?OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance?OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?OPD 7. Whether plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts from the Court?OPD 8. Whether defendant is entitled special costs under section 35- A of CPC/OPD 9. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court partially decreed the suit of respondent no.1 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.3.1995 excluding the land/ share already sold to respondent nos. 2 to 4 and the appellant was directed to get the sale deed executed in the above manner within two months, on receipt of the proportionate balance sale consideration. The appellant was also restrained from alienating the disputed land to any person except respondent no.1. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. R.S.A.No.4318 of 2008 -4- .... Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below have gone wrong in disbelieving the fact that there was no agreement to sell and that only mortgage was intended. He further contended that since the prices of the land have gone up, both the Courts ought to have taken into consideration this factor while exercising discretionary power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (for shot, `the Act'). Lastly, it was argued that the suit was filed after almost expiry of three years and this fact alone should have been sufficient to decline relief to respondent no.1. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. As noticed above, the trial Court partly decreed the suit of respondent no.1 and declined him the relief of declaration and directed the appellant to execute the sale deed pursuant to agreement dated 27.3.1995 by excluding the land/ share sold to respondent nos. 2 to 4. This finding was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Respondent no.1 has not assailed this finding and, therefore, it is held to be final against him. The only controversy that has to be answered is as to whether the agreement in favour of respondent no.1 was a valid agreement or was it a mortgage deed as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is a settled principle of law that a document is to be read as it R.S.A.No.4318 of 2008 -5- .... is and no other meaning can be read into it or attributed to it, which is not explicit from the terms thereof. Respondent no.1 while relying upon the agreement to sell has proved its execution in accordance with law. That being the position, no other meaning can be attributed to it and it has to be read the way it is. Accordingly, it is held that the agreement to sell was validly executed by the appellant in favour of respondent no.1. Once the agreement to sell is held to be valid, then the logical consequences are to follow. The trial Court has rightly concluded that the portion which was sold in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 4 be protected and in any eventuality, the said finding was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and has not been assailed by respondent no.1 and, as observed earlier, the same has become final. The plea as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prices of the property have arisen many fold and that should have been the reason for exercising the discretionary power by the trial Court under Section 20 of the Act is without merit. If such a course is adopted, then every agreement to sell would be a victim of this logic and would provide a convenient handle to a dishonest vendor, who wants to wriggle out of his liability. I am afraid, such a contention can never be accepted. The same is, therefore, rejected. No other point has been urged before this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. R.S.A.No.4318 of 2008 -6- .... March 03,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge