RSA/361/2009 of RAGHBIR SINGH Vs PREM LATA on 31 December 2019

1. Whether suit for specific performance ofagreement to sell property, which wasallegedly executed in the year 1993, wasbarred by limitation, at the time of itsinstitution, i.e. in the year 2005?agreement to sell property, which wasallegedly executed in the year 1993, wasbarred by limitation, at the time of itsinstitution, i.e. in the year 2005?

Substantial question of Law No.1:

3. The contract of sale, qua wherewith, both, thelearned courts below, hence rendered, concurrent decrees,of, specific performance, vis-a-vis, the land borne therein,became drawn, inter-se respondent/plaintiff, and,predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants, namely oneRam Karan rather, in the year 1993. As apparent on areading of the cross-examination, of, the plaintiff, the latteris, a, non-agriculturist, (a) and, hence without, the,apposite valid permission becoming granted, by, theGovernment of Himachal Pradesh, she became barred,under, the mandate, cast, in Section 118, of, the H.P.Tenancy of Land Reforms Act, to, execute, the, appositeregistered deed of conveyance, with, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, and, qua the suit land. Alsothere exists no record(s), nor any evidence ratherexemplicatory, qua, hers striving, for, an appositepermission, from, the authorities concerned, nor obviouslyany validly made permission, became accorded, for, thereafter, (b) the apposite registered deed of conveyance,inter-se her, and, the predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants, becoming hence executed. Significantly,unless, the afore strivings, were, evidently made, during,the lifetime of the predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants, with, whom the plaintiff had drawn, a,contract, of, sale in the year 1993, (c) thereupon aconclusion would become galvanized, vis-a-vis, theplaintiff, being unwilling, and, also unready to execute,the, apposite registered deed of conveyance, with, theafore Ram Karan, the, predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants, (d) besides, also a further concomitantinference becomes marshaled, vis-a-vis, the relief ofspecific performance, as, became accorded, by,concurrently recorded verdicts, by, both the learned courtsbelow, hence, warranting, an, interference, becoming hencemade, by, this Court.

4. Be that as it may, needless to say, the, aforewant(s) rather fortify, an, inevitable conclusion, vis-a-vis,the plaintiff, hence evincing, rather her unreadiness, and,unwillingness to perform, the, afore statutorily enjoinedprecursory act, for, hers thereafter hence becomingenabled, to entail, upon, the predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants, to, execute a registered deed of conveyance,with her, and, appertaining to the land, embodied in theagreement, drawn inter-se her, and, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, agreement whereof, becomedrawn, in, the year 1993. Furthermore, throughout, the,lifetime of the afore predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants/appellants, (a) the plaintiff/respondent,neither insisted upon him, to, execute a registered deed, of,conveyance with her, nor, any evidence exists on record,hence suggestive, vis-a-vis, despite, the afore insistence(s)being made, by the afore, rather during the lifetime, of, thepredecessor-in-interest of the defendants, hence, the latter refusing, to, accede to her request, (b) nor, any evidencebecame adduced, hence exemplificatory, vis-a-vis, despite,the plaintiff requesting, the, predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants, to, purvey to her, all the requisitepapers/documents, (c) besides, qua despite, repeatedinsistence(s) becoming made by the plaintiff, upon, thepredecessor-in-interest of the defendants hence, to,signature all the relevant documents, (d) yet, the latteromitted to signature, the, relevant elicited documents, or,to purvey the requisite documents, to the plaintiff, (e) for,hence facilitating her, to, process the papers, appertainingto permission becoming accorded, for, the requisitepurpose, by the, Government of Himachal Pradesh. Theevident lack, of, the afore peremptory evidence(s) henceexemplifying the afore factum probandum, hence, invite aninference, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather omitting toperform, besides also being unready, or, unwilling, to,complete all the statutorily enjoined precursory steps, for, thereafter hers becoming validly enabled, to, insist upon,the predecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants, to, execute,with, her, a valid registered deed, of, conveyance, vis-a-vis,the suit land. The concomitant effect thereof, is, qua there,being no visible dereliction(s), on the part of thepredecessor-in-interest, of, the defendants, (i) and, furthereffect thereof, is, qua the plaintiff becoming disentitled, to,claim any pronouncement, of, concurrent decrees, of,specific performance of contract, as, became executedinter-se her, and, the predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants.

5. Even though, no time is prescribed, in, thecontract of sale, executed in the year 1993, inter-se theplaintiff, and, the predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants, (i) yet, lack of any prescription of time, inagreement of 1993, does not yet accord, to, the plaintiff,any, open latitude, to hence, at any stage, rather evenafter, the, demise, of, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the

Conclusion

defendants, to, institute a suit, for specific performance,vis-a-vis, the agreement, of, 1993, and, against the aptsuccessors-in-interest (ii) unless evidence demonstrative,vis-a-vis, hers hence performing, the, afore statutorilyprecursories, and, thereafter hers hence becoming validlyenabled, to, assuredly evince her readiness, and,willingness to completely perform, the, agreement, drawninter-se her, and, the predecessor-in-interest, of, thedefendants. However, the afore evidence is amiss,significantly rather in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, theinstitution, of, the extant suit, nor also there is anyevidence, vis-a-vis, hers making any, striving, to, obtain,the, requisite permission, from, the State Government, norduring, the, pendency, of, the lis, the afore striving hencebecame recoursed, (iii) thereupon the plaintiffs’ striving,for, rendition of a decree, for, specific performance, of,contract of sale of 1993, was, unamenable, for, beingbecoming accorded, vis-a-vis, her.

6. The above discussion, unfolds, qua the conclusion(s), as arrived by the learned Courts below,being not based, upon, a proper and mature appreciation,of, evidence, on, record. The substantial question, of law,is, answered, accordingly.

7. In view of the above discussion, the instantappeal, is, allowed, and, the judgments, and, decreesimpugned, before this Court, are, quashed and set aside.Consequently, the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applicationsalso stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records besent back forthwith.

31[st] December, 2019(kck)(kck)

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge