9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Court' in Civil Appeal Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2016 was affirmed. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Civil Appeal preferred by the appellantdefendant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti, Tarn Taran 'trial Court' in Civil Suit Civil Suit No. 535 of 2008 filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 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-plaintiff. 4. The facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. 5. The respondent-plaintiff filed the subject suit in the trial Court seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7th May, 2007 'disputed agreement' in respect of an agricultural plot of land admeasuring 30 Kanals 8 Marlas 'suit land' located at Village Amrike, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab. Besides the relief of specific performance, the respondent-plaintiff also sought permanent in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khem Karan. In this manner, the respondent-plaintiff claimed to have marked his presence before the Joint Sub-Registrar showing his readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour, in terms of the disputed agreement. 8. Respondent-plaintiff further averred in the plaint that the appellant-defendant had breached the terms of the disputed agreement and was not ready and willing to execute and get the sale deed registered despite numerous requests, being made. The respondent-plaintiff also averred that the possession of the land, was handed over to him at the time when the disputed agreement was executed and that the respondent-plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the suit land as a prospective vendee. Apprehending that the appellant-defendant could alienate the suit land in favour of some other person, thereby dispossessing him, the respondent-plaintiff filed the subject suit Civil Suit No. 535 of 2008 seeking reliefs in the following terms: - "It is therefore respectfully prayed that a decree for Specific Performance of Agreement to sell dated 7.5.2007 with regard to land measuring 30 Kanals 8 Marlas detail of which is as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... averments made in the plaint. It was specifically averred in the written statement filed by the appellant-defendant that the disputed agreement was without consideration, result of misrepresentation, impersonation and must have been prepared fraudulently by the respondent-plaintiff who was an employee of the Punjab police, posted as the Head Constable at Amritsar by colluding with the scribe and the attesting witnesses. 10. It was further alleged that the respondent-plaintiff's brother was a commission agent and ran a commission business at Mandi, Amarkot. The appellant-defendant used to sell his agricultural produce through the commission agency of the respondentplaintiff's brother. The appellant-defendant was an illiterate simpleton and the respondent-plaintiff, and his brother used to get the thumb impressions of the customers/agriculturists including the appellant-defendant on blank stamp papers. It was specifically asserted in the written statement that the disputed agreement had been prepared by fraudulent means on one of such blank stamp papers, on which the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant had been taken by deceitful means. The appellant-defendant also denied th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was partly decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and partly against him. The trial Court recorded the following findings : - a. It was an admitted fact that the appellant-defendant was the owner of the suit land and respondent-plaintiff while appearing as PW-1 produced on record the agreement to sell 'disputed agreement', duly signed by the appellant-defendant. b. The respondent-plaintiff testified that the appellantdefendant had agreed to sell the suit land in his favour and received a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- as earnest money with a condition to execute the sale deed on 19th September, 2008. c. On the date fixed as per the disputed agreement, the appellant-defendant failed to appear at the office of the Sub-Registrar whereas the respondent-plaintiff got his presence marked by way of an affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Sub-Registrar, Khem Karan. d. The version of the respondent-plaintiff was also corroborated by the attesting witnesses namely, Major Singh (PW-4) and Balwinder Singh (PW-2). e. That the respondent-plaintiff had proved the execution of the disputed agreement and his willingness to get the sale deed executed by cogent evidence. f. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shop is Cheema Trading Company, at Amarkot. I know Lakha Singh from my childhood. He belongs to my village. I do not know whether Lakha Singh deft sold his agriculture produce through the commission agent shop of my brother Amarjit Singh. I am posted as Head constable in Punjab Police and now posted at Ludhiana at Division no. 11nd. The agreement was scribed at Patti by a typist, but I do not know his name. Possession was not delivered on the basis of agreement to sell. It was mentioned in the agreement that the possession will be delivered on the agreement but the defendant refused to deliver the possession of the land agreed to sold the land to me. I file the income tax return because I am employee of Punjab Govt. I have not shown the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- in my income tax return. It is correct if any Govt. employee want to purchase any land it is necessary to get the permission from their department. I have not taken any permission from my department before purchasing the agreement to sell with the defendant not I show any amount of Rs. Sixteen lakh to my department. It is correct that agriculture income also not shown in my income tax return. I have never shown my agricu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed agreement. Therefore, he submitted that the findings recorded in the judgments of the Courts below are patently perverse and are based on misreading/ignorance of the admitted facts available on record and thus, the appeal merits acceptance and the impugned judgments deserve to be reversed. 20. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondentplaintiff, supported the findings recorded in the impugned judgments. He urged that the trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence minutely and have arrived at an unimpeachable conclusion that the transaction in question was a loan transaction inter se between the respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant and thus, the appellant-defendant was rightly held liable to reimburse the amount of loan secured from the respondent-plaintiff at the time of the execution of the disputed agreement. He urged that the law is well settled that this Court whilst exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, would not enter into pure questions of fact so as to reverse the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below. On these counts, learned counsel for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., (2022) 8 SCC 253 while dealing with its power under Article 136 to interfere with concurrent findings held the following: - "15. It is well settled by judicial pronouncement that Article 136 is worded in wide terms and powers conferred under the said Article are not hedged by any technical hurdles. This overriding and exceptional power is, however, to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of cause of justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence then this Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice. 16. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the trial court and the High Court are correct or not. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact. ... 18. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant-defendant's counsel that the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant may have been taken on a blank stamp paper and the disputed agreement was typed thereon subsequently. 28. It cannot be denied that the respondent-plaintiff being a Police Constable was mandatorily required to seek permission from his department before entering into an agreement to purchase property of such a high value. However, admittedly, he did not seek any such permission from the department. As per the disputed agreement, the appellant-defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the respondent-plaintiff @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per Killa, which was just about half of the market rate of the land at the relevant point of time, as admitted by the respondent-plaintiff. Going by the rate as fixed in the disputed agreement, the total sale consideration would have amounted to approximately, Rs.18,87,000/-. The disputed agreement recites that the appellant-defendant had received earnest money to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- for the purpose of doing agriculture and to buy cheaper and better land nearby. Thus, a lion's share of the sale consideration was already paid to the appellant-defendant at the time of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the month of December, 2008 wherein, alternative prayers, one for the execution of the sale deed and the other for the refund of the earnest money were made. 32. Ex-facie, the averments set out in the plaint and the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff do not bear an iota of truth and appear to be nothing but a sheer concoction. The circumstances noted above, the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff; the disputed agreement and the plaint clearly indicates that the disputed agreement seems to have been prepared on a blank stamp paper on which, the thumb impressions of the illiterate appellantdefendant had been taken prior to its transcription. The large blank spaces on the first and second pages of the disputed agreement and the absence of thumb impression/signatures of the parties and the attesting witnesses on these two pages, fortifies the conclusion that the disputed agreement was transcribed on one of the blank stamp papers on which the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant had been taken beforehand. 33. It may be mentioned here that the appellant-defendant appeared before the trial court, to give evidence as DW-1 and emphatically denied the factum of the execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
