TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. MUKHTIAR DASS & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby in a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question, a decree has been passed in favour of the appellant for recovery of earnest amount along with interest and the specific performance of the agreement in question has been denied. Suffice is to say that in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant -respondents, a specific defence was taken that on the date of execution of the alleged agreement to sell dated 28.5.2002, the defendant -respondent No. 1 Mukhtiar Dass had no saleable right in the property in question, as earlier vide agreement to sell dated 20.2.2002, he had agreed to sell the property in question in favour of one Davinder Singh and the matter had gone to the Arbitrator and an award dated 5.6.2002 with regard to said property was passed in favour of said Davinder Singh.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, in this appeal, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:

(3.) IT is well settled that grant of specific performance of an agreement to sell, under the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is a discretionary relief and the Courts below in their discretion may not grant the said relief even if it is lawful to do so. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised by the Courts below on the basis of sound judicial principles and not in an arbitrary manner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the discretion by the Courts below was in any way exercised in an arbitrary manner and therefore, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law, as raised, in the grounds of appeal arises in this appeal. Dismissed.