4 Ol 1 RSA No3967 of2007 1 4 IN Tll 1GI1 COlJRT Ol PUNJA13 ANIO I IARYANA Al Cl IANDIGARII RSA N03967 of 2007 Datcof 122009 m r 0 Ranbir Singh C Appcllant C5 I versus Z SatbirSingh Rcsponden C I Prcscntl Mr Mahavir Sandhu Advocatc fcr thcappcllant otl Mr I1SIooda Scnior Advocatc with Mr Anil Rathec Advocatc lor thc 7 Z KCPURIJ his is a regularsccond appcalagainstthcjudgment and dccree datcd 782007 passcd by IearnedAdditional lOistrict JudgcJhajjarvidc whichthc appealpreferrcdby agaillsllllc judgincntand decrcedaled 152005 passcdby lcamcd Civil Judgc6ScniorlOivisicnl Jhajjar was disinisscd he has filed suit for by way of spccific of agrccmcnt10 sell dalcd 2062002 It has bcen by thc plaintiflthat vidc agrcenocnt to scll delendantagrecdto sell his 12 kanalsofland situatcd in villagcSchlangain Iavour 0thc plaintiff for a consideration of Rs6500 At thc timc o t thc cxccutlon of the Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 402 1 8L 9RSA No3967of2007 2 8 allegedagrccmcnt carncst moncy of Rs00001 was rcccived bv the 0 defendantand it was agrecdby thc dclcndant that he would cxccutc the salc deed in favour of thc plaintiffupto 1072002 The plaintiffhas furthcr pleadedthat at the time of execution of the allcgedagreement Fard 1 Jamabandi regardingsuit land was not availablc thereforc the Khasra r numbersof the Iand which was agrecdto bc sold could not be mentioncd 0 3 Iil the agreementto sell However it was orallyagreedthat the suit Iand X C5 mentionedin para no l of the plaintwould be sold hc plaintiffhas I pleaded that hc has alwaysbccn rcadyand wi Iling to perlormhis part of Z contract as peragreementto sell lor this he dulyappcared beforc the Sub C Matanhail on 1072002 with the requisitcamount and his I to this cffcct has becn beforc Sub RegistrarMatanhail and has C beendulyinarkcd by affidavit l x6 hc defcndant has backed oiit fOill Ol 4 his agreementto scll by not appearing beforeSub2cgistrarMatanhall on 2 2E 1072002 Hence this suit m 11 Thc dcfcndant in his writtcn statcnlent has pleadcdthat no to sell 1xhibit 12 was cvcr cxccuted by hiIn 111cagreelnentto sell Exhibit P2 is forgedSctitious and is outcolne of fraud played on hiin bythe plaintiffwho happensto bc his uncles son becauseplaintifTwanted 111 thc dcfendants lruck and at thc tinlc of preparingthe papers of lhc dclcndant on the agreenlcnt10 sell Exhlbit 12 may havc becn taken fraudulcntlybythc plaintil lllc aforesaid to sell Ixhibit P2 is not at all bindingon thedclendant From the pleadings of lhe particsthc following ISSUCS were framedon 922002 Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 03 RSA No3967 of2007 2 0 Ve 0 1 Whcthcr thc defendant is owncr in of land colnprised in para no 1 01theplaint2OPP 2 Whether thc defendant had agrced to scll thc Iand mcntioned in para No l of thc plaint in a suin of 1 Rs625001 and was cxccuted an agreeinentin favour of r theplaintiffon 2062002 if so its effect9OPP 0 C 3 Whcther the defendanthad rcceivcd RsO0001 as carnest C5 nloncv on 2062002 9 OPP I 4 Whethertheplainliffhas not cxecutedany agrecnlcntto sell Z thc land 2 OPD 5 Whethcr the plaintifT has no Iocus standl 10 Iile thc prcscnt I suitOPD 06 6 Whcther the defcndant has entitled for spccialcost under Q0 Section 3A CPC 20PD 7 2 7 Rclie 1 e Both the particsIcd their respcctiveevidence I carned trial court after appraisalof the cvidencc on thc Illc dccidcd all thc ISSUCS in favour of thc plaintiffand againstthe dcfcndant and suit of the plaintiffs was dccrced for of 12 kanals of land out of 201 kanals3 marlasofland mentioned I5x10 Fecling dissatisfied with thc abovc said judginent thc Iant prcfcrrcdllrst Appcal which was dccidcd by the Iearncd Additional District Judgc vide judglncnldalcd 782007 and upholdingthe finding of Courts bclow hc appcalprcfcrrcdby thc was dislnisscd Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 04 6 1 4 RSA No967 of2007 4 P Ieeling still dissatisfled with thc af7oresaid dated 782007 passcdby learned Additional District Judge Jhajjarand the judgment and dccree datcd 152005 passedby IcarncdCivil JudgcScnior DivisionlJhajjarofthc Courts bclow thepresentregularsecondappealhas 1 beenfiled r 10 I have hcard learned counsel l or lhe particsand have gone 0 through thc recordsofthe casc 2r C0 Learned counsel for theappellant has submittcdthat agreement C C in questionis vaguc and docs not givethe of the land allcgedly 2 1 agrcedlo bc sold by the in favour of thc plaintiff respondentThe plaintiffhasOled suit for spcciflcperformance claiming12 I kanalsofland out of72 kanalsofland 1 116 shareout ofagricultural land 05 comprisingin khcwat No1831167 Khatoni No19 rcclNo4 killa No1612 4 236742124847J256789rectno9killa no V7 Z 71 29 46809 76841986729 rcctno60 killa no611 min 159kite 11 Ll measuring72 kanals The trial Courl has passcddecrce for speciOc of 12 kanals of land out of 201 kanals 3 marlas 01 land in jamabandiExlOID2 Since the tcrms of agrecmcntare vague and as such the dccree for speciflc should not havc been passedby both the Courts below It is furthcr contcnded thal bolh thc Courts below have misread the cvidencc Oll 1CCOrd rcgardlng the cxecution of the agreemenl and haverelurncd a pcrvcrsc Ondingin rcspcct ofthat agreemcnt To fortifyhis argumcntslearned counsel for lhc appcllanthas rclied upon Suriit Singh 82 Anr VSe Manohar Lal Sc Ors 2005111Civil Court Cases 162lP0 Hland Bhagwan Singh IdeceasedlRcpBv LRs VS Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 05 l of2007 5 7 A Nawab Mohammad Iftikhar Ali Khan and others 1982 PIJ 386 ln replyto thc above notcd submissions Shri Hawa Singh Hooda learned Senior Advocate has supportcd lhc judgmentf the lrial Cour It is contendcdthat adnlittcdlythc plainliffhas 116 sharein lhe land 1 201 kanals 3 marlas of land as describcd in ExP 0 1OlD2 The agrccmentln qucstionstands duly provcdand there 1S C concurrent findingof both the Courts below in lhis regardon the Olc The I 0 trial Court has passcddecrec in rcspcctof 12 kanalsof land out of thc lotal I khattaof theappcllanlwhich is admiltedly morc than 12 kanals The plea Z that agreemcntis vague cannot bc looked into as the has not plcadcdlhc same ln the written statcmcnt Howcvcr both the Courts below havedcalt with the said plcaclaboralclyand thcrcaftcr decree otj of spcciflc of contract in rcspcctof 12 kanalsof land has bcen passcd MrHooda has furthcr contcnded lhat thc lcarned counsel for the v Z appellant could not eslablish on the Ole how both the Courls bclow have misrcad the cvidcncc and have returned perversc flndingregarding the allegation of vagueagrccmcnt So lhc prayer has bccn made for dismissal of appeal 1 havc hcard both thc lcarned counscl for thc particsat great lengthand havc gonc lhroughthe rccordsofthe casc Thc appcllantin paragraph11 of the groundsof appcalhave statedthatfollowinglaw pointsarc involved in thc inslant appcal i Whcthcr both lhc courls bclow ulcnt wrong in deciding1SSUC Nclto 3 in favour of plaintiffand 1SSUC Tlt4 againstthc dcfcndant2 ii9 Whcthcr thc Ondingsof theappcllatc Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 06 4 a RSA No 3967of2007 6 P frorn in apparentpcrvcrsity at thc facc of it beingconlraryto law and facts on record 9 iiil Whcthcr theimpugned judgmcnland dccrcc suffcr froin an apparcntillegalityand pcrvcrsilybecausc thc forgcddocumcntofagrcemcnt to scll datcd 2062002 rP and ignoringthe malcrial picceofcvidcncc which havebeen direct lmpacton dccision 01he casc 3 1 r ivl Whcthcr the courts below have tolallyignorcd while allowinglhc appealthe evidcncc led by the 0 4 Thc main stress of thc lcarncd counscl Rorthe appellantis that 0 2t since khasranumbcrshavenot becn mcntioncdin thc agreementand as such 4r decree for spccific could not be passcd H owcvcr from the 2 C perusal of thc wriltcn statelncnl lt lS rcvcalcd that such an objcction hasnot r bccn takenin thcwritten stalcmcnt Thc exccution ofagrccmcntand rcceipt of earnest monev havc becn denied in thc wrillcn stalcment altogether c6 Appellanlhas not bccn taken a specilc plca that agrecmcntcannot be m enforced bcingvaguc No party can bc allowed to travcl bcvond his Z pleadingsSo on that groundalso theappcalis mcritlcss 0 Otherwise on merits both lhc Courts below havc given a deOniteflndingthal Iant is owncr of lnorc than 12 kanalsof land which is 116 sharc ofland Incasurlllg20 1 kanals31nar1as comprised lll khewat No83107 Khatoni No219 according to thc jamabandifor the year2000200 1 situatcd in villagcSclhangawhich are provedon thc Ole 1Exl 1 OllO2 Although thc plainliff has claimcd 116 share out of 72 kanals of land in the plaintbul sincc that fact was nol mcntioncd i n the agreemenland a decrce of 12 kanals of land out 01 the share of the of 201 kanals 3 marlashasbccn passcd he Appcllatc Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 407 RSA No 3967 02007 7 CourthasconOrmcd thesaidflndingSo inthcsc circurnstanccs both thc Courts bclow have granledcquitablc rcliefto thc plaintiffafterconsidcring whole of thc circumstances So it cannot bc said that dccrec of spccific cannot bc passcdin rcspcctof thc Iand of thc dcfcndalll as 1 arguedby counscl Ior theappcllant C 20 Thc exccution of thc agrcclncnl slands provcd troin thc 0 C0 evidence producedby thc plaintil Thc lirst Appcllale Court has 3 Cl confirmed thal Onding So lhc Ondingof acl rcgardingcxccution of I agrccment cannol bc challcngcdin the sccond appealIil view of Scction Z 100ofthe Code ofCivil Procedurc So thc onlyqlicslion01law which has ansenin the prcscntappealis whcthcr a decrec of spccillcperforinancc In I respect of vaguc agrceInent can bc passcd but in view of discussion madc otj abovc that substantial qucstiono l Iaw stallds answcrcd aeainsl lhe 7 Z So far as the authorilv Suriit Singh Si Anrs case supra 1S 0 concerncd that authority is as lll thtil casc frOlll lhc reading of agrceinentIt was not spcltout as to how Inuch arca is availablc and how inuch considcration would bc payableln lhc prcscnt caS spccillcarca lC 12 kanals atthc ratc of Rs1750001 acrc has bccn agrccdto be sold So thcabovc said aulhorityis not hclpllillo thc ajopcllaill The authority of wan Sineh IcccasedlRco Bv LRs case 1S as 111 that case agrccmcnt to scll did not contain neitherexact arca nor boundarics So in thcsc circuinstanccs lt was fond to be vaguc So that authorityis also dislinguishable to thc facls or lhe prescnt casc Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 08 RSA No39670f2007 8 L Accordingto questionNo l Iaw point incntioncd by the appellantin No l l of the groundsof appcalis rcgarding issue Nos to4 These are thequcstions offact and not thequestion oflaw The controversy resolved in theseissucs is regarding execution of agreementto t sell dated 2062002 and both thc Courts below have givcnconcurrent 0 findingon thescissuesagainstthc Othcrwise also the C challengeof the appeilantlS in respectof agreemcntbeingvague and I C5 learnedcounsel for the appellant has not challenged the execution of the I agreementLearned counsel for the appellant could not pointout how the Z flndingof appellateCourt arc suffering6om any apparentilIegalityor perversityregarding of agieement to sell dated 2062002 I Exe2 and what inaterialpieccofevidence hasbeen ignoredbyit Lcamcd 08 counsel for thc appellant could not point out what cvidencc has bccn ignoredbyboth thc Courts bclow 7 Z So in view ofthe abovediscussion thepointof law mentioned Qe at serial Nosl to 4 in the groundsof appealstands answcred againstthe in vlew of thc discussion inadc above the appealis without any merit and the samc standsdisinissed A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for strict colnpliance 2009 e SV JUDGE t0 1 t 3 Df44 Qs r14411 Rani Anita 2012.07.28 16: 03 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document