RSA No.4144 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RSA No.4144 of 2010 Date of decision : 1.3.2011 Satpal .........Appellant Vs. Jagtar Singh .......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI : Present:- Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the appellant ---- M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL) : The suit of the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 3.1.2003 regarding land measuring 10 marlas, for 10/37 share of the land, mentioned in heading of the plaint, was decreed by the trial Court, refusing to accept the plea of the defendant-respondent that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.60,000/-on interest for one year and the agreement of sale was executed in favour of the plaintiff only for security. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant only for recovery of Rs.67,000/-with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of execution of the agreement till the date of decree @ 6% P.A. from the date of decree till realisation of the decretal amount. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the execution of the agreement of sale has been proved before the Courts below and that the discretion to recover the earnest money with interest, is illegal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court has, on appreciation of evidence, believed RSA No.4144 of 2010 -2- the plea of the defendant-respondent to the effect that the agreement was executed only as security for repayment of loan, raised by the defendant-respondent and the reading of the agreement Ex.P-2 indicate that Rs.67,000/-, i.e. major part of the earnest money, was paid on 3.1.2003 and despite that sale deed was agreed to be executed on 2.1.2004, after a gap of one year. The lower Appellate Court observed that despite having 90% of the sale price, the suit was filed 18 months after the target date. As such, it was a circumstance warranting exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act for alternative relief. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Courts below have ignored the fact that the possession of the property has been transferred to the plaintiff-appellant pursuant to the agreement to sell. The agreement having been partly performed, it was a fit case where discretion should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel has tried to make a reference of the contents of the agreement of sale. After considering contentions of learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant, I am of the opinion that the agreement of sale, in the present case, is dated 3.1.2003, in which it was allegedly mentioned that possession has been transferred of the immovable property. The provisions of Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 incorporated in the Act w.e.f. 24.9.2001, requires a document containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be compulsorily registrable. The possession of the plaintiff-appellant has not been established before the Courts below. After going through the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, I am of the considered opinion, that no doubt the agreement of sale has been proved on the RSA No.4144 of 2010 -3- record but the said fact has not been denied by the defendant-respondent rather a specific plea has been taken to explain the circumstances in which the agreement of sale was executed. The lower Appellate Court having fairly exercised the discretion, as per the parameters, laid down in Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, no ground is made out for interference in the judgment, passed by the lower Appellate Court. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE 1.3.2011 akm