Shanker Singh vs Narinder Singh & Ors

2. On 12.1.1977 the appellant herein, a resident of Village Dera Saidan entered into an agreement to sell certain property with the respondent No. 1, a resident of Dera Mainda, both villages being in Tehsil Sultanpur, Distt. Kapurthala of State of Punjab. The property to be sold consisted of two parts viz. agricultural land, and a house property. The Agricultural lands were bearing Khasra nos. 25/21/1-1/11-19, 26//24/6-11, 10/8-0, 12/5-8, 19/6-13, 20/8-0, 25//5/8-0, 15/8-0, 16/8-0, 17-8-0, 18/6-14, 21/2/5/7, 22/5-14, 23/8-0, 24/8-0, 25/7-18, 26/2-0, 34//2/6-14, 25//13/3-13.

4. It so transpired, that on the agreed date of registration the appellant did not turn up at the office of the Sub-Registrar, and hence the respondent gave a notice to the appellant to execute the sale deed. The appellant did not respond, and therefore the respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 21/1978 in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Sultanpur Lodhi for the specific performance of the agreement. The wife of Shanker Singh, Pritam Kaur was joined as defendant No.2. (She is reported to have expired in 1997). The other co-sharers of the land had sold their land in dispute in favour of one Joginder Kaur and three others who were joined as defendant Nos. 3 to 6 (Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in the Civil Appeal).

8. As far as the second issue with respect to the competence of the appellant to enter into the agreement on behalf of his wife is concerned, although the wife of appellant Smt. Pritam Kaur did file a separate written statement, she did not enter into the witness box. The Trial Court therefore, held that an adverse inference will have to be drawn that she had given such an authority to her husband to sell her property. It further held that when Shanker Singh had agreed to sell his entire land, there was no logic on his part to retain the house, when he alongwith his wife had decided to shift to some other place after purchasing some other property as is evidenced from the agreement.

23. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we have to hold in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that inspite of the offer of relinquishment made by the respondents herein, the specific performance of the agreement cannot be granted, solely on the ground that it is incapable of being performed. We have also to hold that the High Court erred in applying the provisions of Sections 12, 14 and 20 of the Act to the facts of the present case and in exercising its discretion, since this was not a case for specific performance. We have therefore to allow this appeal and set-aside the order passed by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1338 of 1983. The suit filed by the respondents will have to be dismissed.

25. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by the High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal No.1338/1983, as well as the one dated 20.2.1980 rendered by the Sub Judge at Sultanpur Lodhi in Suit No.21/1978. The suit shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, the appellant is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondents which amount shall be paid in any case by the end of March, 2012.