Sucha Singh and Others vs Mohinder Kaur and Another

Kanwaljit Singh Ahuluwalia, J.—Sucha Singh, Kuldip Singh and Salwinder Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17th May, 1982, which was executed between the Plaintiff-Appellants and Balwinder Kaur Respondent No. 2. On the basis of this agreement to sell, they prayed that the sale deed executed in favour of Mohinder Kaur Defendant-Respondent be set aside.

Briefly stated, Plaintiff-Appellants alleged in the suit for specific performance that on 17th May, 1982 they had agreed to purchase 12 kanals of land bearing Killa No. 14R/5, 6/1 situated in village Nangal Jhour, Tehsil Batala at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-per Killa and had paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/-as earnest money to Balwinder Kaur Defendant-Respondent. They further pleaded that the sale deed executed by Balwinder Kaur Defendant-Respondent in favour of Mohinder Kaur was liable to be set aside, as the agreement to sell in their favour was prior in time. In the amended Regular Second Appeal No. 2636 of 1988 plaint, it was stated that due to inadvertence, in the agreement to sell, the description of the land was given wrongly and killa No. 15/10, 12 were mentioned. It was stated that the inadvertence is writ large, as this killa was already owned by the Plaintiff-Appellants.

The trial Court decreed the suit and held that Mohinder Kaur Defendant-Respondent was not bonafide purchaser. Aggrieved against the same, Mohinder Kaur Defendant-Respondent filed an appeal. The appellate Court below held that the agreement Ex.P1 did not pertain to the suit land and therefore, the trial Court had committed an error to decree the suit for specific performance. A categoric stand was taken by Mohinder Kaur that the sale deed Ex.D1 was in her favour and the agreement to sell, if any, pertained to another khasra number. Upholding this contention, the appellate Court below reversed the findings retuned by the trial Court and held Mohinder Kaur Defendant-Respondent to be a bonafide purchaser.

A peculiar feature of this case is that Balwinder Kaur, who had sold the land in favour of Mohinder Kaur, appeared in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellants and admitted execution of the agreement to sell. The very appearance of Balwinder Kaur in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellants led this Court to read her testimony. In the first line of her cross-examination, Balwinder Kaur admitted that the Plaintiffs were none else but her brothers. Therefore, this Court will be put on guard to examine agreement to sell Ex.P1 with suspicion.

Counsel for the Appellants has formulated following questions as substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court:

Whether the judgment of the Ld First Appellate Court is against the facts and contrary to law?

Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court has given the judgment against the pleadings of the parties?

Regular Second Appeal No. 2636 of 1988 Whether the judgment of the Ld. First Appellate Court is a result of misconstruing and misreading of evidence?

Whether the findings of the Ld. First Appellate Court on issue No. 2A are against the pleadings and evidence on record?

In the present case, the following facts are crystal clear:

(i) The agreement to sell Ex.P1 was not containing khasra numbers, qua which the sale deed Ex.D1 was executed.

(ii) The agreement to sell Ex.P1 was executed by Balwinder Kaur in favour of her brothers and she herself had appeared in their favour to frustrate the rights, which had accrued to Mohinder Kaur due to execution of the sale deed Ex.D1.

Thus, it cannot be held that the agreement to sell Ex.P1, due to inadvertence or bonafide belief, contained wrong khasra numbers. The findings of fact returned by the lower appellate Court that qua the khasra numbers purchased by Mohinder Kaur vide sale deed Ex.D1, there was no agreement, is to be upheld. No substantial question of law, as formulated by counsel for the Appellants, arises for consideration of this Court, as neither the Court has misread the evidence nor the findings are perverse.

Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.