DALIP SINGH vs. BHUPINDER KAUR

1 ‘NON­REPORTABLE’ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2435  OF 2018 (@SLP (C) NO(S).34464 OF 2016) DALIP SINGH        …. Appellant(s) Versus BHUPINDER KAUR      … Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   dated 05.08.2016   in   Regular   Second   Appeal   No.1442   of   2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2018.02.23 17:57:19 IST Reason: whereby concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the lower appellate court have been set aside.   2 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bhupinder Kaur (respondent­plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.02.1999, whereby Dalip Singh (appellant­defendant)   had   allegedly   agreed   to   sell   the   suit property to her for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/­ out of which Rs.92,000/­ was paid at the time of the agreement.   4. The   trial   court   dismissed   the   suit   holding   that   there were   many   suspicious   circumstances   surrounding   the agreement.  Though the trial court did not totally believe the case set up by Dalip Singh that he had not even signed the agreement,   it   held   that   the   plaintiff   Bhupinder   Kaur   had failed to prove her own case.   After discussing the evidence threadbare, the trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove   that   an   amount   of   Rs.92,000/­   was   paid   to   the defendant.  The court referred to the statement of the plaintiff in which she had stated that she had withdrawn this amount of Rs.92,000/­ from the Oriental Bank of Commerce.  She did not produce the passbook of the Bank to prove this allegation. In fact, the defendant examined a witness from this Bank, 3 who proved that from 01.02.1999 to 01.03.1999 there was no transaction in the account by the plaintiff.  Thus, the plaintiff had   miserably   failed   to   prove   that   she   had   paid   a   huge amount of Rs.92,000/­ to the defendant.  The trial court also came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that the agreement   was   for   consideration   of   Rs.1,50,000/­   but   the value of the property at the relevant time was not less than Rs.5,00,000/­.   5. The   lower   appellate   court,   after   discussing   the   entire evidence, upheld the decree of the trial court.  It also found that   the   defendant   is   an   illiterate   person   and   even   if   his signatures   on   the   agreement   were   accepted   to   be   there, nobody had led evidence to show that the document was read out and explained to him before he signed the same.  It would also   be   pertinent   to   mention   that   within   four   days   of  the agreement being signed, the defendant had issued notice on 01.03.1999 clearly stating that he had not entered into any agreement to sell nor he had received Rs.92,000/­.  Therefore, this was not an afterthought.   4 6. Surprisingly, the High Court, in second appeal, upset these findings of facts without even discussing the evidence and merely after referring to certain averments of Para 2 of the plaint and paragraph 2 of the written statement, which read as follows: “ Para No.2 of the plaint That at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 25.02.1999 the defendant received a sum of Rs. 92,000/­ from the plaintiff as earnest money in advance and agreed to execute the sale deed   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   on   or   before 16.07.1999.  Paragraph 2 of the written statement on merits “Para No.2 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The defdt. Never received Rs. 92,000/­ from the plaintiff as earnest money on 25.02.99 nor the plaintiff ever paid this amount to the defdt. It is denied that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 16.7.99.” The High Court held that on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings,  the irresistible conclusion is that the agreement to sell was actually executed and readiness and willingness has been proved.   5 7. We fail to understand how the High Court could come to this conclusion.  In the written statement the defendant had denied  the   averments   made  in  Para  2  of   the   plaint.    The defendant had denied that he had received Rs.92,000/­ as earnest money.  There was no admission by him of any of the allegations.     The   reasoning   given   by   the   High   Court   is specious and cannot stand scrutiny.  The High Court did not discuss  the   evidence   at  all  and  erred   in  setting   aside  the concurrent findings of both the Courts.  8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the decree of the trial court.      9. Pending   applications,   if   any,   shall   also   stand disposed of. ………………………...J. (Madan B. Lokur) …………………………J. (Deepak Gupta) New Delhi February  23, 2018