Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4735 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:
11. 02.2014 Rattan Lal -----Appellant(s) Vs. Sh. Rikhi Ram & others -----Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.
2. To be referred to reporters or not?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 5. Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for respondents no.6 to 10. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.3.1995, decree for recovery of Rs.1,09,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit against defendant/respondent no.1 and in his favour has been passed. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court which Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.17 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.4735 of 2011 2 further held entitled the plaintiff-appellant to interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,09,000/- with effect from 20.2.1998 till its realization. As per the averments made, the plaintiff-appellant filed the instant suit seeking the following relief:- “Suit for possession, by way of specific performance of Contract / Agreement dated 24.3.2005 of the land measuring 7 kanal 4 marlas, bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.203/252, Khasra No.10/ 21, situated at Village Gulab Nagar, H.B.No.404, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, on payment of Rs.41,000/- or any other amount which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, which is the balance sale consideration out of Rs.1,50,000/-.”
. Defendants denied the execution of agreement in question and stated that he had taken a loan and the document in question was a security for the said loan amount. On completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether an amount of Rs.59,000/- was received by defendant no.1 as earnest money on the date of execution of agreement ?. OPP.
2. Whether an amount of Rs.1,09,000/- was paid by plaintiff to defendant no.1 as earnest money and as part of consideration ?. OPP3 Whether plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract ?. OPP Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.17 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.4735 of 2011 3 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi?. OPD5 Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?. OPD6 Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit?. OPD7 Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?. OPD8 Whether agreement to sell is forged and fabricated and result of fraud?. OPD6to 9.
9. Whether defendants no.6 to 9 are bonafide purchaser of the suit property?. OPD6to 9.
10. Whether defendants no.6 to 9 are bonafide purchaser of the suit property ?. OPD6to 9 10A. Whether defendant no.10 is bona fide purchaser for consideration as alleged in P.O. No.1?. OPP11 Relief.”
. No other issue was claimed. The suit was decreed in the following manner:- “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,09,000/- from the defendant no.1 along with interest at the agreed rate of interest of 18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization.”
. Still aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first Appellate Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.17 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.4735 of 2011 4 Court, raising two fold arguments, firstly that the appellant was entitled to interest and payment of earnest money from the date of execution of the agreement instead of the date of filing of the suit and secondly, that he was entitled to share in the compensation amount awarded during the land acquisition proceedings. The lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.2011 accepted the submissions of the appellant with regard to grant of interest with effect from the date of execution of the agreement. However, the remaining relief, as claimed in the appeal, was declined in the following manner:- “So far as the claim of the plaintiff for compensation amount is concerned, the agreement of sale itself does not confer any title and the special codified law has been prescribed to deal with the payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Thus the claim of the plaintiff-appellant in this regard is not legally sustainable."
Still not satisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal, submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration:- “I. Whether after upholding the agreement to sell and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, the courts below are justified in not granting the compensation of the land in dispute acquired by the Government ?. II. Whether in view of the admission of defendant no.1 qua the agreement to sell, the courts below are justified in not granting Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.17 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.4735 of 2011 5 the compensation on the ground that the remedy under the Land Acquisition Act is available though the right to title can be granted only by Civil Court ?. III. Whether the judgments passed by the courts below are based on misreading of evidence?. The grievance of the appellant before this Court is that he was entitled to the grant of decree for specific performance of agreement to sell in question. However, it could not be disputed before this Court that during the pendency of the proceedings, the land in question has been acquired by HUDA and thus, by operation of law, the agreement to sell in question cannot be enforced against the defendant-respondents. The argument, as raised before this Court to the extent of seeking share in the compensation amount, is beyond pleadings, as neither any pleading was made nor was any such issue raised/claimed before the trial Court in this regard. The relief claimed in the instant suit was only to the extent of the right of the plaintiff-appellant for enforcement of agreement to sell in question. Therefore, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Courts below. In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this appeal. No other point has been argued. Dismissed. February 11, 2014 [RAKESH KUMAR GARG]. ak JUDGE Kumar Ashwani 2014.02.17 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh