NAHAR SINGH Vs. HARNAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 9/5/1995, of the High court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 220 of 1995. The appellant filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 28/11/1984, alleging therein that the respondent had agreed to sell his land measuring 4 bighas 15 biswas Rs. 7,500. 00 per bigha and agreed to execute the sale deed by 15/6/1985. Part of the money was paid as earnest money and remaining amount of Rs. 23,000. 00 was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was further alleged that Rs. 2.50 paise were paid as writing charges of pronote and pronote was executed for Rs. 11,050. 00 but no amount was paid in cash to the appellant by the respondent as recited in the pronote. The appellant further urged that he was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the respondent committed breach and did not execute the sale deed. And therefore, a suit was filed for the relief of specific performance, as already stated. The respondent resisted the said suit by denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 11,050. 00 from the respondent and executed a pronote and therefore, he had filed a suit for recovery of the amount along with interest which had been registered as Suit No. 463 of 1987. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit for specific performance. In the suit filed by Hamak Singh for realisation of the sum of Rs. 11,050. 00 together with the interest thereon, Nahar Singh took the plea that he had never taken any money as alleged and never executed any pronote. Both these suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 31/1/1990. The suit filed by Hamak Singh for recovery of money was dismissed (Civil Suit No. 463 of 1987, the suit filed for specific performance by Nahar Singh was decreed (Civil Suit No. 181 of 1988. Two appeals were preferred by Hamak Singh and the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur by his judgment dated 13/9/1994 came to hold that the agreement dated 28/11/1984 (Exhibit D-l) is not enforceable and no specific performance of the said agreement can be ordered as the property in respect of which the agreement had been entered into is vague and unidentifiable. He further found that the said agreement Exhibit D-l having been deliberately undervalued to save the stamp duty and registration fee, is void on the ground of public policy.