LexLAKHA SINGH versus BALWINDER SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 79 : 2024 INSC 744 Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 10893 of 2024) 27 September, 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding execution of the disputed agreement; alleged payment of Rs.16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant and alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of sub-registrar in the purported exercise of getting the sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement was fraud and concoction. Headnotes† Contract – Specific Performance – Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of an agricultural plot of land – In alternative, respondent-plaintiff, inter-alia, sought relief of recovery of Rs.19,00,000/- including the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- paid as earnest money on the date of execution of the disputed agreement – Trial Court allowed the suit partly, directing recovery of Rs.16,00,000/- and denied the prayer of specific performance – The first appeal as well as the second appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant were rejected – Correctness: Held: In the instant case, the stamp papers were not purchased by the appellant-defendant nor respondent-plaintiff – The document was typed out in Gurmukhi language and the photostat copy thereof is available on record – The disputed agreement runs into 3 pages – The signature of the respondent-plaintiff, and the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant are marked only on the last page thereof – The first and second pages of the agreement, do not bear the signature of the respondent-plaintiff or the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant – There exist significant blank spaces at the foot of the first two pages below the transcription typed out on these two pages – These observations give rise to a strong inference fortifying the contention of the * Author 80 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 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 – Respondent-plaintiff did not take permission from his department before entering into an agreement to sell of such a high value – According to the disputed agreement, appellant-defendant agreed to sell his land @ Rs.5,00,000/- per Killa, which was half of the market rate of the land – Going by the rate fixed, the total sale consideration of the land would have been Rs.18,87,000/- – However, the disputed agreement recites that appellant-defendant had received an earnest money of Rs.16,00,000/-, which is lion’s share of the total sale consideration – Therefore, it does not stand to reason that why respondent-plaintiff would defer execution of sale deed to a date almost 16 months later, when only 15% of the total value was remaining – Thus, the disputed agreement i.e., the agreement to sell is highly suspicious – As far as appearance of respondent-plaintiff in the sub-registrar office is concerned, admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff did not give any advance intimation to the appellant-defendant imploring him to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed on the scheduled date i.e. 19.09.2008 or anytime thereafter – Instead, he directly proceeded to file the subject suit 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 – The factors enumerated above, are sufficient for this Court to conclude that the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding the execution of the disputed agreement; the alleged payment of Rs. 16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant on 07.05.2007 and the alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the purported exercise of getting the sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement is nothing but a sheer piece of fraud and concoction. [Paras 27, 28, 29, 31, 36] Case Law Cited Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India [2022] 13 SCR 523 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322; Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. [2022] 6 SCR 989 : (2022) 8 SCC 253 – relied on. List of Keywords Contract; Specific performance; Earnest money; Disputed agreement; Refund of earnest money; Fraud; Concoction; Sale [2024] 10 S.C.R. 81 Lakha Singh v. Balwinde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.