IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.14500 and 14498 of 2009 in RSA No.4897 of 2009 Date of decision: 02.03.2010 Preetam Singh and another ..Appellants Versus Shri Ram ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants . . . AJAY TEWARI. J CM No.14500-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, same stands allowed and the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.14498-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, same stands allowed and the delay of 75 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No.4897 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19.11.2001 in regard to 2 Kanals 4 Marlas of land for a total consideration of Rs.25,500/-, out of which an amount of Rs.15,500/- was paid at the time of the agreement to sell while the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- had to be paid at the time of registration, which was fixed for 10.11.2002. The appellants in their written statement denied the execution of agreement to sell. However, as CM No.14500 and 14498 of 2009 -2- in RSA No.4897 of 2009 mentioned above, both the Courts found as a fact that appellants had indeed executed an agreeent to sell and that the respondent had been proved to be ready and willing at all times to get the sale deed executed. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the suit of the respondent was barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the suit was maintainable in view of the fact that the land in question belongs to a person belonging to Scheduled Cast category and the purchase being a non-schedule caste? (iii) Whether the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question is maintainable in view of the fact that the same was unrealistic and unjustified ? As regards question No.(i), it is not disputed that the suit was filed on 29.01.2005 and therefore, the same was within limitation. As regards question No.(ii), no law has been cited whereby land absolutely owned by a Scheduled Caste cannot be agreed to sell to a non-Schedule Caste person. As regards question No.(iii), learned counsel has cited a judgment of Kashi Ram Vs. Om Prakash Jawal, 1996(2) P.L.R. 337, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the specific decree for specific performance of 25 a years old agreement to sell. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the fact that as against the damages of Rs.12,000/- (claimed as an alternate relief), the appellant was willing to pay Rs.10 Lacs. However, in the present case, learned counsel has argued that she will seek instructions from the appellants as to what would CM No.14500 and 14498 of 2009 -3- in RSA No.4897 of 2009 be the amount of damages they are ready to pay the appellants. Learned counsel has further argued that now to force the appellants to execute a sale deed after 10 years would be unrealistic and unfair. In my opinion, the grant of alternate relief of damages could not serve the ends of justice in the present case. As noticed above, the appellants came to Court and even denied the agreement to sell. Even the judgment cited of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself held that the rise in prices of property during the pendency of the suit may not be the sole consideration for refusing to decree the suit for specific performance. In these circumstances, holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. March 2, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE