LAWS(SC)-2005-5-40

SURINDER SINGH Vs. KAPOOR SINGH

Decided On May 03, 2005
SURINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
KAPOOR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A two-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated 6.9.2001 referred the matter for decision by a bench of three Judges in view of the purported conflict recorded in Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors AIR 1990 SC 854 and Rachakonda Narayana v. Ponthala Parvathamma and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 3353.

(2.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

(3.) Balwant Singh father of the Appellant herein was the owner of the suit land measuring 153 Kanals 19 Marlas. He allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the said land on a consideration of Rs. 500/- per Bigha. The total consideration of Rs. 16,000/- in terms of the said agreement for sale dated 22.7.1964 is said to have been paid. However, for some reason or the other no sale-deed could be executed and registered pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. It is stated that Arjan Singh had paid a further sum of Rs. 14,000/- in addition to the said sum of Rs. 16,000/-. The said Balwant Singh died on 11.2.1968 whereafter the Appellant herein entered into another agreement for sale on or about 17.10.1968 in relation to the suit land. The said agreement was entered into by him on his own behalf as also on behalf of his sister, for a consideration of Rs. 4,700 per acre. The amount of Rs. 32,000/- paid to Balwant Singh was treated to be the earnest money under the said agreement, in terms whereof, a sale-deed was to be executed and registered on or before 20.6.1969. As the Appellant herein allegedly failed and/or neglected to perform his part of contract, a suit for specific performance of the said agreement dated 17.10.1968 was filed. In the said suit, a plea was raised that the Appellant herein was not authorized to enter into the agreement for sale on behalf of his sister Tajinder Kaur. The Trial Court inter alia accepting the said plea dismissed the suit. It was further held that as two Khasras bearing Nos.39/4 and 29/3/2 were not included while describing the land in the plaint, a decree for specific performance could not be granted.