PARMINDER SINGH versus GURPREET SINGH

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 25-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 419 
PARMINDER SINGH 
v. 
GURPREET SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 3612 of2009) 
A 
JULY 25, 2017 
B 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Specific Performance: 
Suit for specific performance - Decreed by trial court -
Further affirmed by first appellate court as well as second appellate 
C 
court - On appeal, held: Categorical finding of facts by courts 
below is essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and 
hence binding on Supreme Court - More so, such findings are 
neither perverse, nor against evidence or pleadings or any provision 
of law - Grant of specific performance is essentially in the discretion 
D 
of the court - Grant of such relief by courts below in exercise of 
their respective discretionary powers, cannot be disturbed in exercise 
of jurisdiction u/Art. 136 of the Constitution - Specific Relief Act, 
1963 - s. 20 - Constitution of India - Art. 136. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Courts below recorded categorical finding 
of fact saying that the genuineness of the agreement was even 
admitted by the defendant's witnesses. The Courts below also 
recorded a finding that the respondent was ready and willing to 
perform his 'part of the agreement and, in fact, performed his part 
of the agreement whereas the appellant failed to perform his part 
of the agreement and thereby committed its breach. (Para 13) 
[422-F-G] 
E 
F 
2. The findings recorded by the three courts on facts, 
which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the 
three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings . G 
of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court. 
Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High Court 
while hearing the second appeal. It is more so when these findings 
were neither found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial 
person could ever record such findings nor these findings were H 
419 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
found to be against the evidence, nor against the pleadings and 
lastly, nor against any provision of law. [Paras 14, 15] 
(422-F-H; 423-A-B] 
3. The question as to whether specific performance of an 
agreement should be granted or not is essentially in the discretion 
B · of the Court. Indeed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act says so 
in no uncertain terms. Therefore, once the Trial Court, first and 
second Appellate Court formed an opinion and decided to grant 
the specific performance of the agreement to the plaintiff in 
exercise of their respective discretionary powers, this Court 
being the last Court in hierarchy, cannot disturb such concurrent 
C findings while exercising power under Article 136 of the 
Constitution of India. [Paras 16, 17] [423-B-D] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3612 
of2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2007 of the High 
Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. No. 
2039 of2007. · 
V. K. Jhanji, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. for the 
Appellant. 
E 
Sudeep Mahajan, Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advs. for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed 
against the judgment and final order dated 30.07.2007 passed ,by the 
F 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 2039 of 
2007 whereby the High Court dis'tllissed the second appeal filed by the 
appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2007 passed by 
the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Amritsar in C.A. No. 
FTC/I 0 of 2003/2006 by which the appeal filed by the appellant herein 
G was dismissed with costs affirming the judgment and decree dated 
12.08.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge( Senior Division),Ajnala 
in Civil Suit No. 95 of2006. 
H 
2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues 
involved in this appeal. 
PARMINDER SINGH v. GURPREET SINGH 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
421 
3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the 
A 
plaintiff in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The appellant and 
the respondent are real brothers. The respondent is elder to the appellant. 
4. The appellant (defendant) is the co-sharer of the land to the 
extent of 55/118, which comes to 84 Kanals, in the joint Khata of total 
land measuring 177 kanals 10 Marlas situated in Village Vachhoa, Tehsil 
B 
Ajnala, District Amritsar. The appellant entered into an agreement on 
02.07.1995 with

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.