Present: Mr. Amit JaIn Advocate Vs. Jagroop Singh ...Appellant - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126284
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Amit JaIn Advocate
RespondentJagroop Singh ...Appellant
Excerpt:
vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4854 of 2012 (o&m) [1].rs.no.1010 of 2013 (o&m) ***** in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh (1) rs.no.4854 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:10.02.2014 jagroop singh ...appellant versus sandeep kumar and others ...respondents (2) rs.no.1010 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:10.02.2014 sewak singh and others ...appellant versus sandeep kumar and another ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar jain present: mr.amit jain, advocate, for the appellant. mr.b.s.mittal, advocate, for the respondents. ***** rakesh kumar jain, j. two appeals bearing rs.nos.4854 of 2012 and 1010 of 2013 are being decided by this common order because sandeep kumar had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 15.11.2004 entered into by tara singh (since deceased) qua his land measuring 108 kanals 5-½ marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village chamal, tehsil and district sirsa, for a vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4854 of 2012 (o&m) [2].rs.no.1010 of 2013 (o&m) ***** total sale consideration of `24,36,187.50/- @ `1,80,000/- per acre after receiving a sum of `20,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff. part of the suit land, i.e.16 kanals 02 marlas was under mortgage with the punjab national bank for a sum of `1,00,000/-. the defendant no.1 agreed to get it redeemed prior to the execution of the sale deed for which the date was fixed as 01.06.2005. the said suit has been partly decreed by the learned trial court and instead of execution of sale deed, the plaintiff has been held entitled for recovery of `20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date when the money was advanced till its actual realization alleging it to be a loan transaction. against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the successors-in-interest of tara singh filed civil appeal no.35 of 2010 and sandeep kumar filed civil appeal no.100 of 2010. both the appeals were decided by the lower appellate court by a common order dated 20.09.2012 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, gift deeds and sale deeds qua the suit land which were executed after the execution of the agreement to sell dated 15.11.2004 and decreed the suit filed by sandeep kumar for specific performance with costs. the case of the plaintiff was that defendant no.1 tara singh did not turn up to perform his part of the contract and after execution of the agreement to sell, he had gifted part of the suit land i.e.66 kanals 01 marla to his son amrik singh-defendant no.2 vide registered gift deed no.7444 dated 17.11.2004 who further sold the gifted land along with his own land to his brother-in-law vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4854 of 2012 (o&m) [3].rs.no.1010 of 2013 (o&m) ***** jagroop singh-defendant no.3 vide registered sale deed no.8686 dated 31.12.2004. defendant no.1 further gifted part of the suit land measuring 15 kanal 03 marlas to his daughter sukhmander kaur-defendant no.4 vide registered gift deed no.9295 dated 04.01.2005 and 22 kanals 13 marlas to his daughter-in-law parminder kaur-defendant no.5 vide registered gift deed no.9463 dated 11.01.2005. the suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants admitting the gift deeds. it was rather alleged that defendant no.1 had friendly relations with devi lal khoth, advocate, as they were doing commission agency business in the same market. plaintiff-sandeep kumar is the son of real brother- in-law of devi lal khoth, advocate and on account of his relationship, he took a loan of `20,00,000/- from him with an understanding that in case the said amount is not returned by defendant no.1 within one month, he would execute the sale deed of ½ share of shop no.13 at addl. mandi, sirs.in his favour. it is further alleged that on 15.11.2004, devi lal khoth took him to the shop of stamp vendor and got purchased stamp papers from him for the purpose of obtaining his signatures and writing as security to the receipt of `20,00,000/- and after the purchase of stamp papers.defendant no.1 put his signatures and made an endorsement of receipt of `20,00,000/-, though he never agreed to sell his agricultural land to the plaintiff. on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4854 of 2012 (o&m) [4].rs.no.1010 of 2013 (o&m) ***** case. the entire case hinges upon the interpretation of document ex.p1 i.e.agreement to sell as to whether it was executed as a security for the loan advanced to defendant no.1 or there was an intention of defendant no.1 to sell his land to the plaintiff. the trial court partly decreed the suit, as observed here- in-above, for the recovery of `20,00,000/- with interest but the lower appellate court decreed the suit holding that the document ex.p1 was not a security for the loan but it was receipt of earnest money in terms of the agreement to sell. learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on the firs.page of the document ex.p1, there are signatures of tara singh-defendant no.1 and sandeep kumar-plaintiff both but on the second page there is no signature of tara singh and sandeep kumar. he has further submitted that the language of the endorsement on the agreement signed by tara singh-defendant no.1 itself proves that it was a loan transaction and not payment of earnest money in respect of the agreement to sell. thus, in this case, the moot point is as to whether the document ex.p1 has been rightly appreciated by the lower appellate court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. i have also perused the document ex.p1. on the revers.side of the firs.page of the said document, an entry is shown in the register of the stamp vendor and it is duly signed by tara singh. the firs.page of the agreement is signed by tara singh and sandeep kumar but on the second page there was no vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4854 of 2012 (o&m) [5].rs.no.1010 of 2013 (o&m) ***** signature of sandeep kumar which is otherwise not required as it is required to be signed by the seller. as a matter of fact, the language of the receipt by itself proves that it was not a loan transaction but the payment was made towards earnest money because it reads as under:- “today, i have received `20,00,000/- in cash after counting it from the purchaser as earnest money.”. this receipt is signed by tara singh on 15.11.2004 and is not disputed. in my opinion, by no stretc.of imagination, this could be a loan transaction and since there is no fraud alleged and proved, it has to be believed that tara chand had properly understood the document before signing it as he is not allegedly an illiterate person and was rather a businessman. in this regard, reliance could be placed on m/s grasim industries limited and another v. m/s aggarwal steel, 2010(1) rcr (civil) 932 (s.c.).moreover, it is apparent from the transfers.which took place after the agreement to sell dated 15.11.2004, that defendant no.1, in order to wriggle out of the agreement to sell, had transferred the property in dispute by way of registered gifts in favour of the family members who have also sold it to the members of their family to create a third party charge. if this property was kept as a security by execution of ex.p1, defendant no.1 could not have transferred the disputed property by way of gifts and the donees would not have sold the same till the amount of loan is returned by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. no other point has been raised by counsel for the vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh rs.no.4854 of 2012 (o&m) [6].rs.no.1010 of 2013 (o&m) ***** appellants. in view of the aforesaid discussion, i do not find any merit in these appeals as no question of law much-less substantial is involved therein and hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. february 10, 2014 (rakesh kumar jain) vinod* judge
Judgment:

vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4854 of 2012 (O&M) [1].Rs.No.1010 of 2013 (O&M) ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Rs.No.4854 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:10.02.2014 Jagroop Singh ...Appellant Versus Sandeep Kumar and others ...Respondents (2) Rs.No.1010 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:10.02.2014 Sewak Singh and others ...Appellant Versus Sandeep Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.B.S.Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents.

***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

Two appeals bearing Rs.Nos.4854 of 2012 and 1010 of 2013 are being decided by this common order because Sandeep Kumar had filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 15.11.2004 entered into by Tara Singh (since deceased) qua his land measuring 108 Kanals 5-½ marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Chamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa, for a vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4854 of 2012 (O&M) [2].Rs.No.1010 of 2013 (O&M) ***** total sale consideration of `24,36,187.50/- @ `1,80,000/- per acre after receiving a sum of `20,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff.

Part of the suit land, i.e.16 Kanals 02 Marlas was under mortgage with the Punjab National Bank for a sum of `1,00,000/-.

The defendant no.1 agreed to get it redeemed prior to the execution of the sale deed for which the date was fixed as 01.06.2005.

The said suit has been partly decreed by the learned Trial Court and instead of execution of sale deed, the plaintiff has been held entitled for recovery of `20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date when the money was advanced till its actual realization alleging it to be a loan transaction.

Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the successors-in-interest of Tara Singh filed Civil Appeal No.35 of 2010 and Sandeep Kumar filed Civil Appeal No.100 of 2010.

Both the appeals were decided by the lower Appellate Court by a common order dated 20.09.2012 setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, gift deeds and sale deeds qua the suit land which were executed after the execution of the agreement to sell dated 15.11.2004 and decreed the suit filed by Sandeep Kumar for specific performance with costs.

The case of the plaintiff was that defendant no.1 Tara Singh did not turn up to perform his part of the contract and after execution of the agreement to sell, he had gifted part of the suit land i.e.66 Kanals 01 Marla to his son Amrik Singh-defendant no.2 vide registered gift deed no.7444 dated 17.11.2004 who further sold the gifted land along with his own land to his brother-in-law vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4854 of 2012 (O&M) [3].Rs.No.1010 of 2013 (O&M) ***** Jagroop Singh-defendant no.3 vide registered sale deed no.8686 dated 31.12.2004.

Defendant no.1 further gifted part of the suit land measuring 15 Kanal 03 Marlas to his daughter Sukhmander Kaur-defendant no.4 vide registered gift deed no.9295 dated 04.01.2005 and 22 Kanals 13 Marlas to his daughter-in-law Parminder Kaur-defendant no.5 vide registered gift deed no.9463 dated 11.01.2005.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants admitting the gift deeds.

It was rather alleged that defendant no.1 had friendly relations with Devi Lal Khoth, Advocate, as they were doing commission agency business in the same market.

Plaintiff-Sandeep Kumar is the son of real brother- in-law of Devi Lal Khoth, Advocate and on account of his relationship, he took a loan of `20,00,000/- from him with an understanding that in case the said amount is not returned by defendant no.1 within one month, he would execute the sale deed of ½ share of shop no.13 at Addl.

Mandi, SiRs.in his favour.

It is further alleged that on 15.11.2004, Devi Lal Khoth took him to the shop of stamp vendor and got purchased stamp papers from him for the purpose of obtaining his signatures and writing as security to the receipt of `20,00,000/- and after the purchase of stamp papeRs.defendant no.1 put his signatures and made an endorsement of receipt of `20,00,000/-, though he never agreed to sell his agricultural land to the plaintiff.

On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4854 of 2012 (O&M) [4].Rs.No.1010 of 2013 (O&M) ***** case.

The entire case hinges upon the interpretation of document Ex.P1 i.e.agreement to sell as to whether it was executed as a security for the loan advanced to defendant no.1 or there was an intention of defendant no.1 to sell his land to the plaintiff.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, as observed here- in-above, for the recovery of `20,00,000/- with interest but the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the document Ex.P1 was not a security for the loan but it was receipt of earnest money in terms of the agreement to sell.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on the fiRs.page of the document Ex.P1, there are signatures of Tara Singh-defendant no.1 and Sandeep Kumar-plaintiff both but on the second page there is no signature of Tara Singh and Sandeep Kumar.

He has further submitted that the language of the endorsement on the agreement signed by Tara Singh-defendant no.1 itself proves that it was a loan transaction and not payment of earnest money in respect of the agreement to sell.

Thus, in this case, the moot point is as to whether the document Ex.P1 has been rightly appreciated by the lower Appellate Court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

I have also perused the document Ex.P1.

On the reveRs.side of the fiRs.page of the said document, an entry is shown in the register of the Stamp Vendor and it is duly signed by Tara Singh.

The fiRs.page of the agreement is signed by Tara Singh and Sandeep Kumar but on the second page there was no vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4854 of 2012 (O&M) [5].Rs.No.1010 of 2013 (O&M) ***** signature of Sandeep Kumar which is otherwise not required as it is required to be signed by the seller.

As a matter of fact, the language of the receipt by itself proves that it was not a loan transaction but the payment was made towards earnest money because it reads as under:- “Today, I have received `20,00,000/- in cash after counting it from the purchaser as earnest money.”

.

This receipt is signed by Tara Singh on 15.11.2004 and is not disputed.

In my opinion, by no stretc.of imagination, this could be a loan transaction and since there is no fraud alleged and proved, it has to be believed that Tara Chand had properly understood the document before signing it as he is not allegedly an illiterate person and was rather a businessman.

In this regard, reliance could be placed on M/s Grasim Industries Limited and another v.

M/s Aggarwal Steel, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 932 (S.C.).Moreover, it is apparent from the transfeRs.which took place after the agreement to sell dated 15.11.2004, that defendant no.1, in order to wriggle out of the agreement to sell, had transferred the property in dispute by way of registered gifts in favour of the family members who have also sold it to the members of their family to create a third party charge.

If this property was kept as a security by execution of Ex.P1, defendant no.1 could not have transferred the disputed property by way of gifts and the donees would not have sold the same till the amount of loan is returned by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff.

No other point has been raised by counsel for the vinod kumar 2014.02.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Rs.No.4854 of 2012 (O&M) [6].Rs.No.1010 of 2013 (O&M) ***** appellants.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in these appeals as no question of law much-less substantial is involved therein and hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.

February 10, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE