BALKAR SINGH Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 4.10.1995 for sale of the suit land has been decreed by both the Courts below for the sale consideration of Rs. 2 lacs, out of which Rs. 75,000/- stood already paid as earnest money. The balance amount was required by decree to be paid within one month failing which the suit was deemed to be dismissed. On deposit of balance sale consideration the defendant-appellant was under an obligation to execute the sale deed within one month thereafter. If the defendant-appellant had failed to execute the sale deed, then the plaintiff-respondent was held entitled to execute the decree. Both the Courts below have found that the defendant-appellant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 4.10.1995 and had received a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as earnest money on the same day. It has further been found that the plaintiff-respondent has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff-respondent has executed a general power of attorney in favour of his father on 6.3.1996 who remained present before the Sub Registrar on 2.4.1996 but the defendant-appellant failed to turn up for executing the sale deed. The general power of attorney of the plaintiff-respondent had marked his presence in the office of Sub Registrar which proves the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. In view of the specific findings recorded by both the Courts below, the plaintiff-respondent has been held entitled to a decree for possession by way of specific performance.

(2.) Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel has argued that the Courts below should have passed a decree for alternative relief in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, rather than a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4.10.1995. According to the learned counsel, the defendant-appellant had approached the plaintiff-respondent who was serving as Senior Superintendent of Police in Punjab Police with the object of getting his son arrested who had inimical relations with him. Learned counsel has also stated that price of the land is on lower side which also proves the fact that the land has been sold on account of undue influence. Learned counsel has also made a reference to Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and argued that the discretion exercised by both the Courts below is not proper.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel at some length, I am of the view that version of the defendant-appellant as submitted by his counsel does not find support from the findings of facts or even otherwise from the record. Narinder Singh plaintiff-respondent had himself appeared in the witness box and categorically stated that he was never posted in Punjab, The adequacy or inadequacy of the price can hardly be any basis which may constitute a ground for declaring an agreement to sell or a sale as illegal. It is also well settled that once the agreement to sell is proved and a consideration has passed hands, then the general rule is to order specific performance of the agreement rather than passing an order for the alternative relief. It is only in cases where the transaction would result into unjust benefits to the vendees that an alternative relief of refund of the amount could be ordered. However, there is no unjust consequence flowing from directing execution of sale deed disclosed in the present case. The appeal is wholly without merit as the findings are based on evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence is not within the domain of this Court under Section 100 of the Code. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.