RSA No. 755 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 755 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 10, 2010 Smt. Sarla Devi Bhatia and others ...... Appellants Versus Roshan Lal Verma ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for specific performance of an agreement to sell a portion of House No. 389, sector7-B, Faridabad. The entire property was comprised of 600 square yards and the appellant was the owner of 281 square yards in the rear of the property. She entered into an agreement dated 19.08.2003 to sell her entire property to the respondents for a total amount of Rs. 4,75,000/-. The appellant received a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and the respondents further agreed to clear the loan amount of Rs.2,75,000/-which was pending at that time. Another condition in the agreement to sell was that though the possession of the remaining property was handed over to the respondents No. 6 and 7, yet the appellant was bound to get the property vacated from one tenant (in one room) by RSA No. 755 of 2010(O&M) 2 28.03.2004 whereupon the sale deed was to be got executed. As per the case set up by the respondents the appellants did not get the premises vacated. Ultimately the respondents filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance. The plea taken by the respondents was that the agreement to sell was actually a security amount for loan, however, the plea was demonstrably false in so much as neither the loan amount was mentioned, nor the rate of interest was mentioned nor the time within which the same was to be repaid was mentioned. Even in her deposition the appellant did not rebut any of these assertions. It was in these circumstances that the Courts below rejected the plea that the agreement to sell was in fact a security document and decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the alleged document relied upon by the respondent was an agreement or only a security document? ii)Whether the regulation of 1978 prohibits fragmentation of the land/buildings in dispute and against the statute as per Regulation 18 of the Haryana Urban development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations 1978? iii)Whether the respondent has been able to prove on record that he is ready and willing to perform his part on the basis of the alleged agreement? iv)Whether it is mandatory to serve notice upon the appellant to perform her part of the alleged contract before the filing of the suit by the respondent? v) Whether there has been complete misreading of the pleadings as ell as the evidence on the record by the courts below while deciding the suit of the respondent. It would be seen that questions No. (i), (iii) and (v) are pure questions of fact. As regards question No.(ii), no doubt fragmentation of property is not allowed but the learned Courts below rightly noticed that the RSA No. 755 of 2010(O&M) 3 appellant herself having purchased 281 square yards cannot say that the sale was not permissible in law. Question No. (iv) has not been argued. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 10, 2010 sunita