RSA No. 2332 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2332 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 06, 2009 Mohan Singh ...... Appellant Versus Pal Mohammad ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.L.Mongia, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing a suit for specific performance with regard to an agreement to sell dated 6.10.2003 in respect of 8 kanals of land for a total consideration of Rs.2 lacs out of which Rs. 1,75,000/- were stated to have been paid at the time of agreement and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of the sale deed. The plea taken by the appellant-respondent was that the said document was a forgery and that he had never agreed to sell the property. Both the Courts below have negated this plea. Learned counsel has not been able to establish that the said finding is either based on no RSA No. 2332 of 2009 2 evidence or based on such a perverted reading of the evidence so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the C.P.C. The following substantial questions of law have been proposed:- i) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances instead of relief of specific performance the Courts below ought to have passed a decree for recovery of amount claimed in the suit as well as in the evidence? ii) Whether the agreement to sell was in essence an agreement for the sale of land or was it a security for the recovery of the amount? iii) Whether the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the settled principle of law that in the suit for specific performance of a contract, the hardships of the defendant and tremendous escalation of the prices of real estate properties are necessary to be considered judiciously? iv) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court in a number of cases? As regards question No. (ii) the same is a pure question of fact and I have not been persuaded that the decision thereon is vitiated either on the ground that there is no evidence to support it or that it is based on a perverted misreading of the evidence. As regards question Nos.1, 3 & 4 are concerned two pleas have been put forward by learned counsel for the appellant. The first is that this is the only land belonging to the appellant and the second is that the stated value of the land was abnormally low. As regards the first argument, learned counsel has relied upon several judgments viz. AIR 2000 SC 3106, AIR 2002 SC 1279, 1999(3) PLR Delhi section 32, 2004(2)PLR 542 and 2001(3) PLR 706. The basic RSA No. 2332 of 2009 3 principle decided in these cases is that a decree for specific performance is a discretionary relief and a Court is not bound to grant such relief. The statement of law is unexceptional and is indeed binding. No evidence was led by the appellant either to prove that he had no other land or that the value stated in the agreement to sell was abnormally low. In this view of the matter I have not been able to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the discretion in decreeing the claim for specific performance was not exercised judiciously. Consequently I decide the above questions of law against the appellant and dismiss the appeal with, however,no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 06 , 2009 sunita