RSA No.3322 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. RSA No.3322 of 2011(O&M) Ram Dhari Goel .....Appellant v. Bhushan Kumar Manuja and another .....Respondents 2. RSA No.3324 of 2011 (O&M) Ram Dhari Goel .......Appellant v. Bhushan Kumar Manuja and others .......Respondents Date of decision: August 11, 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order disposes of both the aforementioned regular second appeals filed against judgment and decree dated 9.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, dismissing appeals filed by present appellant-defendant against judgments and decrees dated 31.10.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Chandigarh, decreeing suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell and dismissing the suit for declaration filed by present appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. RSA No.3322 of 2011(O&M) -2- Admitted facts are that premises in dispute was allotted to appellant vide allotment letter dated 29.9.1972, Ex.P1. There is also no dispute that present appellant entered into an agreement to sell the same premises in dispute for a consideration of `3 lacs in favour of respondents- plaintiffs vide agreement to sell dated 10.10.1992, Ex.P2. There is also no dispute that entire sale consideration was received by present appellant from respondents-plaintiffs at the time of execution of agreement. No time limit for execution of sale deed was fixed. Possession of premises in dispute was also handed over to respondents-plaintiffs at the time of execution of agreement. However, later on present appellant unilaterally revoked the said agreement and various other documents executed by him in favour of respondents-plaintiffs at the time of entering into agreement, without even issuing any notice to respondents-plaintiffs. Pursuant to revocation of agreement by present appellant, the present suit was filed by respondents- plaintiffs for a decree for specific performance, which was decreed by learned trial Court. Another suit was also filed by appellant for decree for declaration which was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeals filed by present appellant-defendant against the said judgments and decrees were also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in agreement, Ex.P2, there is a recital that in case appellant commits breach of agreement, then he will be liable to pay two times of the amount received by him, plus two times of the amount to be paid to the Government, if any, and plus two times of the cost of construction/damages, if any, to the said purchasers. He has also placed reliance upon Dadarao and another v. Ramrao and others, 1999(7) Scale 57: Manu/SC/0710/1999. RSA No.3322 of 2011(O&M) -3- However, in Dadarao's case (supra) a plea was taken by defendants that the agreement was really in the nature of loan transaction. There was also a clause for making the payment and it was directed that the said amount would be paid. However, perusal of present agreement shows that it has been mentioned therein that even a general power of attorney was executed in favour of purchasers and a special power of attorney was also executed in favour of Pawan Kumar son of Shri Sher Chand and Shri Gulshan Taneja son of late Shri Kishori Lal and they were authorised to do all acts, deeds and things for the proper management and for getting the sale deed executed. However, lateron the said documents were also unilaterally revoked by present appellant-defendant. Hence, the intention of the parties at the time of execution of agreement to sell was to get the sale deed executed. Entire sale consideration was also paid and possession was also handed over. Hence, the said authority is not applicable to the facts of present case. It is further contended that as per clause 13(a) of the allotment letter, Ex.P1, present appellant-defendant could not sell or otherwise transfer his rights in the site or a part thereof for a period of 15 years from the date of completion of the building. Plea has been taken that in the present case the completion certificate was issued on 15.11.1977, whereas the agreement is dated 10.10.2012 and hence, period of 15 years would have expired on 15.11.1992. However, both the Courts below have dealt with this point and came to the conclusion that sewerage connection was granted to present appellant-defendant much earlier. Moreover, it was for appellant- defendant to show as to when the construction was actually completed. It RSA No.3322 of 2011(O&M) -4- is common knowledge that completion certificate is applied after completion of the building and the department also takes time in issuing the same after undergoing some official formalities. Hence, it cannot be said that date of issuance of completion certificate is to be taken as the date of completion of the building. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in these second appeals. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in these second appeals. Accordingly both the appeals are, hereby, dismissed in limine. 11.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge