HARJIT GREWAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 13.4.1978 of plot measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas, as detailed in the plaint, has been ordered to be decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondents brought a suit on the pleadings that the defendant/appellants entered into an agreement to sell their plot detailed in the head note of the plaint on 13.4.1978. The price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per marla, and amount of Rs. 12,000/- was paid as earnest money. The balance of Rs. 3,11,900/- was to be received by the defendants from the plaintiffs at the time of registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was agreed to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs in equal shares. The defendants agreed to apply for permission of the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the sale deed was to be registered within one month from the intimation of permission by the defendants, which was to be sent to the plaintiffs. It was also stipulated in the agreement to sell that if the plaintiffs failed to get the sale deed registered after the permission was obtained, the amount advanced would stand forfeited, and in case the defendants failed to perform their part of agreement, the plaintiffs would be entitled to refund earnest money and another amount of Rs. 12,100/- by way of damages. The expenses for purchase of stamp papers for getting the sale deed executed was to be incurred by the plaintiffs, whereas registration charges were to be borne by the defendants.

(3.) THE suit was contested wherein preliminary objection was raised that the property in dispute is part of tenancy under Dr. Harbhajan Singh Grewal prior to agreement in dispute. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Grewal was said to be running a hospital in the name and style of Raja Hospital, and had constructed latrine etc. in the property in dispute. There were number of rooms which were used by hospital employees and patients. The answering defendants claimed not to be in possession of the property in dispute. Dr. H.S. Grewal was said to be necessary party to the suit. The plan and boundaries filed by the plaintiffs were said to be wrong. The agreement was said to be vague, ambiguous and unenforceable. It was also pleaded that the scribe of the agreement was relation of the plaintiffs and in collusion with the plaintiffs, deed writer did not mention the value of construction made in the property in dispute in the agreement in question. It was claimed that this fact was deliberately kept concealed. The agreement was not read over by the answering defendants and, thus, it was claimed that the fraud was practiced upon them, who were made to sign the agreement without knowing the contents therein. The value of super- structure was claimed to be more than one lac. It was also claimed that the sale price alleged in the agreement did not mention the true picture. The plaintiffs had also agreed to purchase the super-structure at Rs. 1 lac and omission in this regard was deliberately made. All expenses for execution of sale deed were to be borne by the plaintiffs, but surprisingly the scribe has also to the contrary wrongly referred to it otherwise to the detriment of the defendants. Expenses for purchase of stamp papers as well as registration etc. were to be borne by the plaintiffs which is the usual custom in such cases. The plaintiffs have played a fraud and got incorporated that the stamp expenses were to be borne by the defendants. It was also claimed that the answering defendants never agreed to apply for sanction to the competent authority in the instant case. The case set up was that under the Land Ceiling Act the said sanction was not required at all, and the clause was got scribed without the knowledge of answering defendants. The case set up was that the clause was got incorporated by the plaintiffs to gain time for making arrangement for payment to be made. It was the case of the defendant/appellants that the plaintiffs were not financially sound to make payment at the time of agreement so executed. The sale deed was to be completed within one month of the agreement, but in collusion with the scribe, the plaintiffs got the above condition manipulated. Plea of estoppel was raised against the plaintiffs. It was also claimed that the agreement was not otherwise enforceable after the period of two years and six months since sale deed was to be completed within one month It was claimed that the copy of agreement was never given to defendants. The defendants also claimed that their request to provide them copy for enabling them to do the needful was not complied with. The suit was said to be not maintainable due to fraud, uncertainity and mis-representation. The plea was also raised that the plaint was not in accordance with the provisions of law and, therefore, deserved to be rejected. It was pleaded that in reply to notice dated 12.6.1991, from the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, return was filed and an application was also moved for exemption and for development of Raja Hospital, which was being run for the last 30 years. The exemption was granted by the Secretary to Government Punjab, and the defendants as such cannot by way of sale, gift or otherwise transfer the property in dispute. The order was said to be dated 21.2.1984.