NAHAR SINGH versus HARNAK SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 29-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
NAHAR SINGH 
A 
v. 
HARNAK SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : 
Immovable property-Agreement of sale-Specific performance of-
Trial Court without applying its mind regarding identifiability of property 
granted decree in respect of same-However, first appellate court on C 
examination of material on record came to positive conclusion that said 
agreement neither contained exact area of land to be sold nor boundaries, 
length, breadth, place from where it was to be measured and khasra numbers 
thereof-First Appellate Court also found said agreement was entered into 
to save stamp duty and registration fee and, therefore, opposed to public 
policy and relief of specific performance could not be claimed-High Court D 
dismissed second appeal-Held: Supreme Court's interference with findings 
of First Appellate Court as confirmed by High Court not called for-
Constitution of India, ·Art. J 36. 
Code of Civil Procedure, J 908 : 
Immovable Property-Decree for recovery of-Held: Unless property 
was identifiable no decree could be granted in respect of same. 
E 
The appellant entered into an agreement of sale of immovahle 
property with the respondent whereby the respondent agreed to sell 
his land for a sale consideration and agreed to execute the sale deed, F 
Part of the consideration was paid as earnest money and remaining 
amount was to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of 
registration of sale deed. As the respondent did not execute the sale 
deed the appellant tiled a suit for specific performance of the agreement 
of sale. The trial court decreed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court G 
held that the said agreement of sale was not enforceable and no specific 
performance of the said agreement could be ordered as the property 
in respect of which the agreement had been entered into was vague 
and unidentifiable. The Lower Appellate Court further found that 
the said agreement having been deliberately undervalued to save the 
stamp duty and registration fee, was void on the ground of public H 
13 1 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A policy. The second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Being 
aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Courts 
below not having found the agreement to be invalid, committed error 
in denying specific performance and, therefore, this Court should 
B interfere with the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court 
as confirmed by the High Court in Second appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that no court 
would pass a decree which ul',imately became unenforceable and, 
C therefore, there was no infirmity with the judgment of the Lower 
Appellate Court as confirmed by the High Court 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. I. The Trial Court while decreeing the suit for specific 
D performance never applied its mind to the identifiability of the property 
in question and on the basis of a finding that the parties had entered 
into an agreement and the respondent failed to perform his part, 
granted relief sought for in the suit. The Lower Appellate Court, 
however, examined the materials on record and came to the positive 
E conclusion that the agreement of sale neither contains the exact area 
of the land to be sold to the appellant, nor the boundaries thereof. The 
Lower Appellate Court further found that no length or breadth of the 
land have been given and it does not pin point the place from where 
it was to be measured and no khasra nos. had been given in the 
agreement. The Lower Appellate Court also found that the parties 
F entered into an agreement to save stamp duty and registration fee and 
the said agreement is thus opposed to the public policy and relief of 
specific performance cannot be claimed. ( 135-A-C] 
J.2. It is not for this Court to interfere with the decision of the 
G Lower Appellate Court which has been confirmed by the High Court 
in Second Appeal in exercising power under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. It is well settled that unless the property in question for 
which the relief has been sought for is identifiable, no decree can be 
granted in respect of the same. (135-DI 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13388 of 
L 
.. 
NAHAR SINGH v. HARNAK SINGH [PATTANAIK, J.] 
133 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.95 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.