Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8575 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19735/2006)
NIDHAN SINGH (D) TH LRS. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
SANTA SINGH (D) TH LRS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior
counsel in support of this appeal and Ms. Anita
Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. This appeal seeks to challenge the
JUDGMENT
th
judgment and order dated 5 July, 2006 rendered by
Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in
Regular First Appeal No. 185 of 1980, affirming the
st
judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, 1
Class, Moga, in Suit No.314 of 1977 which was filed
by the respondent.
3. The respondent Santa Singh (since deceased)
had filed a suit for specific performance of the
Page 1
2
agreement dated 19.7.1977 by which the respondent
had agreed to purchase half share of the land which
belonged to one Bhan Singh, brother of the appellant
Nidhan Singh (since deceased), in Village
Takhanwadh, Tehsil Moga. The agreed amount was
Rs.60,500/- out of which a sum of Rs.3000/- was paid
immediately. The brother of the appellant-defendant
had created a mortgage on the land and a sum of
Rs.5,000/- was due to be paid to the Bank. The
respondent was to make that payment. Unfortunately,
Bhan Singh, who had signed that agreement, died on
2.11.1977 and then the appellant declined to execute
the agreement which led the respondent to file the
suit on 22.11.1977.
4. Various issues were raised in the suit and
JUDGMENT
after having framed the issues, the Trial Court came
to the conclusion that the respondent plaintiff was
ready and willing to perform his part of the
agreement and had made out a case of specific
performance. The suit was therefore decreed. The
appeal against the order of the Trial Court was
dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal, by
special leave, by the heirs and legal
Page 2
3
representatives of the defendant Nidhan Singh.
5. We have perused the judgments rendered by the
Trial Court as well as the High Court and heard the
counsel for the parties. The only issue raised by
Mr. Neeraj Jain, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants is that if the disputed sale was
to be permitted, in view of Section 12 of the Punjab
Land Reforms Act, 1972, the landholding of the
respondent-plaintiff would have gone beyond the
permissible limit, and therefore, such an agreement
could not have been held to be a valid one. In
defence, a decree for partition dated 10.9.1974
between the respondent-plaintiff and his sons in a
suit filed by his sons in 1974, which decree was
passed in favour of his sons, was relied upon by the
respondents. Consequently, the landholding of
JUDGMENT
respondent-plaintiff would not be beyond the
permissible limit. It was contended on behalf of
the appellants that the said decree was a collusive
one. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
declined to accept that objection of the appellant.
We are in agreement with the Courts below on this
aspect inasmuch as the decree was obtained way back
in 1974 and the disputed agreement was entered into
Page 3
4
much later in 1977.
6. In the circumstances, there is no substance
in this appeal. Having noted these facts, we find
that now the respondents will have to pay the
balance amount of Rs.57,500/-. Inasmuch as this
agreement was entered into in the years 1977, if the
legal representatives of the respondent are keen on
having the transaction completed, it is in the
fitness of things that they should pay the remaining
amount with interest which we direct to be paid at
the rate of 12% per annum. If the respondents are
not in a position to pay this amount, the decree
will stand altered and the appellants will return
the amount of Rs.3,000/- with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum.
JUDGMENT
7. We direct the respondents to make necessary
payment to the appellants and the Bank within three
months from today. The respondents will clear the
amount due to be paid to the Bank at whatever rate
of interest the Bank will charge, in case the
amount is not paid so far. On making the payment to
the Bank, Rs.5,000/- will be debited from the
Page 4
5
payable amount. In the event the amount is so paid
and the Bank dues are cleared, the sale deed will be
executed within four weeks thereafter, and the
possession of the concerned land will be handed over
to the L.Rs. of the respondent. In case there is no
understanding between the parties with respect to
the portion of the land to be handed over, it will
be for the executing Court to decide as to which
portion of the land is to be handed over to the
respondents in compliance of the order of this
Court. In the event the respondents fail to
discharge both these obligations, it will be open to
the appellants to return the amount of Rs.3,000/-
with interest at 12% per annum within four weeks
after the period of three months as provided above.
JUDGMENT
8. This appeal is disposed of in the above
terms.
.........................J
(H.L. GOKHALE)
.........................J
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi;
September 17, 2013.
Page 5