PARMINDER SINGH v. GURPREET SINGH INSC 567

From Advocatespedia
  NAME OF CASE

PARMINDER SINGH v. GURPREET SINGH 

  FACTS

The appellant(defendant) and the respondent (plaintiff) are real brothers, with the respondent being the elder. The dispute concerns a property in Village Vachhoa, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. The appellant owns a 55/118 share (84 kanals) of the jointly held land measuring 177 Kanals 10 Marlas. On July 2, 1995, the appellant agreed to sell his share to the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.5 lakhs, receiving Rs. 4 lakhs in cash at the time of the agreement. The balance was to be paid upon registration of the sale deed, which was scheduled for execution by December 13, 1995. 

  ISSUES

1. Did the appellant fail to execute the sale deed in favor of the respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 02.07.1195? 2. Was the respondent entitled to claim specific performance of the agreement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 3. Were the findings of the Trial Court regarding the validity of the agreement and the respondent’s readiness and willingness to perform the contract correct and legally sustainable? 4. Did the Additional District Judge and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rightly affirm the Trial Court’s judgment and decree for specific performance> 5. Was the decision to grant specific performance appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the case? 

  HOLDINGS

1. Yes, the appellant failed to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement, despite receiving Rs. 4 lakhs out of the Rs. 5 lakhs sale consideration. 2. Yes, the respondent was entitled to specific performance as he demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, fulfilling the requirements of Section16(c). 3. Yes, the Trial Court’s findings were upheld by both the first appellate court and the High Court as being correct, based on the evidence presented. 4. Yes, both the Additional District Judge and the High Court rightly affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, finding no error in the concurrent findings of fact. 5. Yes, the grant of specific performance was deemed appropriate, as the respondent acted in good faith, and the agreement was valid and enforceable. 

  RATIONALE

The appellant contended that the agreement was forged, claiming he had signed a blank paper at the respondent’s request for use in unrelated litigation and never intended to sell the property. However, the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court found the agreement to be genuine, based on evidence and the respondent’s demonstrated readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract. These findings, being concurrent, were binding and not found to be perverse, contrary to evidence, or in violation of any legal provision. The Supreme Court held that it could not reassess evidence already been thoroughly evaluated by the lower courts and dismissed the appeal, affirming the grant of specific performance in favor of the respondent. 

  CITATION

• Indian Kanoon: Indian Kanoon. "Access to Indian Laws and Judgments." Accessed 9 Jan. 2025, https://www.indiankanoon.org.

Retrieved from "https://advocatepedia.com/index.php?title=PARMINDER_SINGH_v._GURPREET_SINGH_INSC_567&oldid=409638"