HARDAYAL DHYAN SINGH Vs. SARDAR BALBIR SINGH CHADDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 27-2- 2006 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, (FTC), Raipur, CG in Civil Suit No. 81-A/2004 wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by the respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs against the appellants for specific performance of contract regarding land bearing survey No. 87/2, area 10020 sq.ft., situated at village Puraina, Patwari Halka No. 113, Tahsil and Dist. Raipur, CG and after execution of sale deed delivery of possession thereon.

(2.) As per version of respondents/plaintiffs Smt. Jasbir Kaur who is wife of respondent No.1 entered into an agreement on 31-3- 1994 with the original appellant Hardayal Singh for land in question for cash consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The whole amount of consideration was paid to the original appellant No.1 by Jasbit Kaur on 31-3-1994. Original appellant Hardayal executed Power of Attorney in favour of husband of Jasbir Kaur to perform on behalf of the said appellant of the part of contractual obligations under the agreement dated 31-3-1994. The said Hardayal did not take any action for obtaining permission from the Urban Ceiling Authority and not executed sale deed and at the same time carried out construction work over the said piece of land, therefore, respondents have made protest and it is agreed that for construction raised over the said piece of land Smt Jasbir Kaur will pay additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. Rs.50,000/- was paid and document is also executed for the said purpose. Smt. Jasbir Kaur died on 21-11-1995 and respondents being legal representatives are entitled to get the sale deed executed from appellants/legal representatives of late Hardayal. As it is pleaded on behalf of the appellants that document produced before the trial Court by the respondents is written statement against loan amount borrowed by them from Smt. Jasbir Kaur and same is not agreement to sell of the property in question. They further pleaded that the land in question is partitioned between two sons of late Hardayal Singh i.e., appellants No. 1 and 2 namely Harvinder Singh and Satpal Singh by registered sale deed and they are in possession of their respective piece of land and constructed a house thereon. They further pleaded that property in question was purchased by Hardayal Singh on 30-3-1994, there is no need of entering into another agreement after a day. i.e., 31-3-1994. After hearing the parties, the trial Court opined that both parties have entered into agreement to sell the property in question and document produced before the trial Court regarding agreement to sell is not a document written for security of loan. As the respondents have completed their part of contract, the appellants have to perform their part of contract and that is why decree was passed against appellants.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the original appellant/defendant Hardayal Singh executed Power of Attorney in favour of respondent Balbir Singh, therefore, sale deed cannot be executed because such transfers are made to avoid payment of stamp duty and registration charges and to avoid payment of capital gain on transfer to invest unaccounted money, therefore, sale deed cannot be executed in the present case as per law laid down in the matter of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656.