RSA No. 1053 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1053 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2011. Amrik Singh & others .......Appellants Vs. Balbir Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant had agreed to sell the land measuring 8 Kanals 1 Marla being 161/4375 share out of total land measuring 218 Kanals 15 Marlas for a consideration of ` 1,51,000/-. On 1.8.2002, defendant received the entire consideration from the plaintiff i.e. ` 1,51,000/- and executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Possession of 8 Kanals 1 Marla of land bearing Khasra No. 105//17(5-12) 24min (2-9) was handed over to the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be got registered by the defendant but the defendant had failed to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had executed a sale deed on 1.8.2002 in favour of defendant qua land measuring 6-⅔ marlas bearing Khasra No. 326//3/1 min (0- 6-⅔) for a consideration of ` RSA No. 1053 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 17,500/-. Plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant but the defendant had failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar, Sunam. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that he was co-sharer in possession of the suit land along with his brothers. Defendant was cultivating the suit land jointly with his brothers. Plaintiff had approached the defendant to purchase the suit land as he wanted to utilize the same for running a rice mill. The sale consideration was agreed at ` 3,51,000/-. It was denied that the plaintiff had paid ` 1,51,000/- to the defendant on 1.8.2002. Since, the sale consideration had not been paid by the plaintiff, the sale deed could not be got executed in favour of the plaintiff. It was denied that possession of the suit land had been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant. The sale of 6-⅔ marlas of land by plaintiff to the defendant was admitted. However, it was averred that the sale deed could not be got registered as the original sale deed was in possession of the plaintiff. The possession of the land sold by the plaintiff had been handed over to the defendant and defendant had raised construction on the said land. When the defendant refused to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff qua the said land, plaintiff also refused to get the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has been and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP RSA No. 1053 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of sale deed dated 1.8.2002? OPP 3. Whether sale consideration was fixed at the rate of ` 3,51,000/- instead of ` 1,51,000/- if so its effect? OPD 4. Whether suit is within limitation? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2007, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of defendant Roop Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit filed by plaintiff was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff had failed to claim possession of the suit property. The plaintiff could have sought an appropriate relief under the Registration Act. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ram Saran and another versus Smt. Ganga Devi AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2685, wherein it was held that mere suit for declaration that plaintiffs were owners of the suit property without seeking relief of possession, was not maintainable. Similar view was taken in Vinay Krishna versus Keshav Chandra and another AIR 1993 Supreme Court 957 and Mehar Chand Das versus Lal RSA No. 1053 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Babu Siddique and others 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 628. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff in order to prove the due execution of the sale deed in question, examined Amarjit Singh, Deed Writer as PW-1 and Satgur Singh, attesting witness as PW-3. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2. The said witnesses deposed qua the due execution of the sale deed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Since, the defendant had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the requisite sale consideration, he was liable to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff. There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that plaintiff should have taken recourse to Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908. Plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance and also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land to any other person. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was maintainable. Learned first Appellate Court had rightly placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah versus Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy 1999(2) Apex Court J 0378 and Chandeshwar Yadav versus Smt. Radha Devi & others 2001(2) Apex Court J 0096. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants fail to advance the case of the appellants as they are based on different facts. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. RSA No. 1053 of 2011 (O&M) -5- Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 04, 2011 Gurpreet