RSA No. 895 of 2010 (O&M). Case: Bishan Singh Vs Om Parkash Manjhal. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | RSA No. 895 of 2010 (O&M) |
| Counsel | Jagdish Manchanda |
| Judges | Vinod K. Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 |
| Judgement Date | February 25, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
CM No.2524-C of 2010
For the reasons stated in the application, civil misc. is allowed and the delay of 57 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM No.2525-C of 2010
For the reasons stated in the application, civil misc. is allowed and the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM No.2526-C of 2010
For the reasons stated in the application, civil misc. is allowed and the appellant is allowed to file this appeal as indigent person.
CM No.2527-C of 2010
For the reasons stated in the application, civil misc. is allowed and the appellant is exempted from filing the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 14.3.2007.
RSA No.895 of 2010
This regular second appeal by the defendant/appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2009, passed by the learned lower appellate court, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent, for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement, was ordered to be decreed.
The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.1.2002, vide which the defendant-appellant had agreed to sell house in dispute for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only). A sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only), was paid as earnest money. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent that he was always willing and ready and still ready to perform his part of the contract, and therefore, was entitled to decree for specific performance of agreement to sell.
The defendant/appellant, contested the suit by taking a plea that the agreement was unfair and to the disadvantage of the defendant- appellant, as the defendant/appellant had no other house to live in. It was also pleaded that he was not the owner of the property, which was jointly owned by the other family members. A stand was also taken that the agreement was forged document as the appellant/defendant was made to sign some blank papers as security for loan of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) out of which Rs.28000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand only) already stood paid.
Learned courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant/defendant had entered into an agreement dated 21.6.2002 for the sale of the house in question for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only). The learned courts below also held that the evidence on record proved the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial