No proof of payment of sale consideration. Appeal filed by the seller allowed by Supreme Court.
Judgment dated 27th September 2024
Cause title : LAKHA SINGH Vs BALWINDER SINGH & ANR
Case No: SLP (Civil) No. 30250 of 2018
A Bench of Supreme Court Hon'ble Justice Mr. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and Hon'ble Justice SANDEEP MEHTA allowed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Seller challenging Judgment passed by the High Court in second appeal. In the Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the factors enumerated above, are sufficient for this Court to conclude that the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding the execution of the disputed agreement; the alleged payment of Rs. 16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant on 7th May, 2007 and the alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the purported exercise of getting the sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement is nothing but a sheer piece of fraud and concoction.
Facts of the case are:
he respondent averred in the plaint that the appellant-defendant,
being the owner of the suit land, had agreed to sell the same to the
respondent-plaintiff vide the disputed agreement wherein, the rate
of the land was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per Killa with a condition to
get the sale deed executed and registered on 19th September, 2008.
As per the recitals in the disputed agreement, the
appellant-defendant received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- by way of
earnest money on the date of the execution of the agreement with a
further stipulation that the balance consideration would be paid on
19th September, 2008, when both the parties would appear at the
Registrar office. It was further stipulated that if on the said
date, the appellant-defendant failed to execute the registered sale
deed then, he would become liable to return the earnest money to the
tune of Rs.16,00,000/- along with penalty of equal amount, totalling
to Rs.32,00,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff. Even after receiving
the money and the penalty, the respondent-plaintiff would be
entitled to file a suit for getting the sale deed executed in his
favour. This disputed agreement was attested by two witnesses.
The respondent filed the subject suit in the trial Court seeking a
decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7th
May, 2007 in respect of an agricultural plot of land admeasuring 30
Kanals 8 Marlas7 located at Village Amrike, Tehsil Patti, District
Tarn Taran, Punjab. Besides the relief of specific performance, the
respondent-plaintiff also sought permanent injunction for
restraining the appellant-defendant from alienating the suit land
and dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from the same. In the
alternative, respondent-plaintiff sought relief of recovery of
Rs.19,00,000/- including the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- paid as
earnest money on the date of execution of the disputed agreement
along with the damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.
The trial Court allowed the suit partly, directing the recovery of Rs. 16,00,000/- and the interest accrued thereupon from the appellant-defendant by way of alternative relief of recovery while denying the prayer of specific performance sought for by the respondent.
Observation and Direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"34. On perusal of the plaint and the affidavit by way of
examination-in-chief of the respondent-plaintiff, a very significant
fact can be culled out. The respondent-plaintiff did not even make a
whisper in his deposition affidavit that when he proceeded to the
office of the Sub-Registrar on 19th September, 2008, he was carrying
the balance sale consideration with him. Furthermore, it is not the
case of the respondent-plaintiff that he ever offered the balance
sale consideration in terms of the disputed agreement to the
appellant-defendant at any point of time either before 19th
September, 2008 or on 19th September, 2008, when the
respondent-plaintiff appeared before the Sub-Registrar.
35. The respondent-plaintiff admitted that he did not seek
permission from his department before entering into the
agreement for purchase of property having high value. It is not the
case of the respondent-plaintiff that he and the appellantdefendant
were on such close terms that he would readily agree to give cash
loan to the appellant-defendant without any security.
36. The factors enumerated above, are sufficient for this Court to
conclude that the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding
the execution of the disputed agreement; the alleged payment of Rs.
16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant on 7th May, 2007 and
the alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the
office of the Sub-Registrar in the purported exercise of getting the
sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement is nothing but
a sheer piece of fraud and concoction.
37. These vital factual aspects were totally glossed over by the
Courts below while deciding the suit, the first appeal and the
second appeal. In these facts and circumstances, we find it to be a
fit case to exercise our powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India so as to interfere with the impugned
judgements.
38. Hence, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the
judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2013 rendered by the trial
Court, judgment dated 20th March, 2017 passed by the First Appellate
Court and the judgment dated 25th April, 2018 rendered by the High
Court suffer from perversity on the face of the record and hence,
the same cannot be sustained.
39. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
40. The impugned judgments are hereby quashed and set aside. Decree
be prepared accordingly. No order as to costs."
Download Judgment dated 27th September 2024 in LAKHA SINGH Vs BALWINDER SINGH & ANR, SLP (Civil) No. 30250 of 2018.