2008 (12) TMI 835 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Court Upholds Partial Specific Performance Limited to Defendant's Share in Property Dispute.

Amrik Singh Versus Jagjit Singh Sayal and Ors.

The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the First Appellate Court's decree for specific performance against defendant No. 1, limited to his share in the ... - Issues Involved:1. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the agreement.2. Entitlement of the plaintiff to specific performance of the agreement dated 6.5.1991.3. Entitlement of the plaintiff to the injunction claimed.4. Proper valuation of the suit.5. Privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 4.6. Allegation of the suit being malafide and the agreement resulting from fraud.Summary:Issue 1: Readiness and Willingness of the PlaintiffThe trial court held that the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. This was supported by the fact that the plaintiff served a legal notice on 16.1.1994, expressing his readiness to pay the balance amount and execute the sale deed.Issue 2: Entitlement to Specific PerformanceThe trial court decreed that specific performance could not be granted against defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as they had not authorized defendant No. 1 to sell the property. However, the First Appellate Court partially decreed the suit against defendant No. 1 for specific performance to the extent of his share in the suit land, subject to adjustment of the amount already received by him. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 'Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors. AIR1990SC854,' which held that a vendee could seek partition and demarcation of the vendor's share.Issue 3: Entitlement to InjunctionThe trial court did not grant the injunction as the specific performance was not decreed against all defendants. The First Appellate Court also did not address this issue separately.Issue 4: Proper Valuation of the SuitDefendant No. 1 raised an objection regarding the improper valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction. However, the trial court did not find merit in this objection.Issue 5: Privity of ContractThe trial court found no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 4, as they had not authorized defendant No. 1 to sell the property. This was reiterated by the First Appellate Court.Issue 6: Allegation of FraudDefendant No. 1 alleged that the agreement was a result of fraud. However, the trial court found that the agreement to sell was valid and had been admitted by defendant No. 1 in his written statement.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the First Appellate Court's decree for specific performance against defendant No. 1 to the extent of his share in the suit land. The court found no merit in the appellant's contention that specific performance of part of the contract would cause legal difficulty, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors.' The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.