LexSURESH KUMAR THROUGH GPA versus ANIL KAKARIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] l l S.C.R. 253
SURESH KUMAR THROUGH GPA
v.
ANIL KAKARIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4383 of2009)
NOVEMBER 06, 2017
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Tra11sfer of Property - Agreement to sell - 011 facts. original
al/ottee entered i1110 an agreement to sell the land w the appellant -
Hoiveve1; on the death of the allottee. his legal heirs-respondent
nos.I to 3 sold the land to respondent No.4 - Suit for declaration
A
B
c
by' appellant against respondents that the transfer made by
respondent nos. I to 3 in j{1vo11r <!/. respo11dent no.4 null and void
a11d respondents be restrai11ed from inte1fering with appellant:~
possession over the suit land, and ji>r issuance of ma11datory
injunction agai11st respo11dent nos. I to 3 directing them to tra11sfer
D
the suit land in j{1vour of appellant - Suit filed on basis of the
agreement and Will allegedly executed by origi11al al/ottee in
appellant "sfC1vo11r-Dis111issal of the suil by the /rial co11r1 -Dismissal
offirsi appeal as also second appeal - On appeal. held: Appel/ant:~
suit is wholly misconceived and rightly dismissed by the courts below
- Concurrent findings offa,ct recorded by the courts based on
apprecialion of evidence. 1/111s, binding on !his Courl - Findings
neither j(m11d to be perverse nor against the evidence. against the
pleadings or against any provision of law - Appel/ant had no prima
fi1cie case in his j(1vour to file a suit nor he had even any locus to
file the suit since the agreemenl as also the Will was not held proved
- Proper remedy of the appel/ant was to file suit for specific
pe1formance of the agreement in relation lo !he suit land against
respondent nos. I to 3 wilhin the stipulaled time - Also S11i1 was
barred by limittllion - Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 - s. l 00 -
Second appeal - Limitation - Remedy.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4383
of2009.
From the .final Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2008 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.1522
of2006.
253
E
F
G
H.
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(20 I 7] 11 S.C.R.
A
Jaidcep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Himanshu Gupta, Shivaji M. Jadhav,Advs.
B
for the Appellant.
San jay KumarVisen, S.S. Shamshery.Alok Kumar, Amit Sharma,
Ankit Raj. Sandeep Singh, R. C. Kohli, Saurabh Shamshori, Ms. Maanisha
Agrawal. B. K. Satija, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by the
plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1522 of
2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the
C
;tppellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21. I 0.2005
passed by the Additional District J udgc, Panchkula in C.A. No.20 of
2005.
D
E
F
2. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents arc the
defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
3. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No.28. measuring 114"
acre in Industrial Area Phase-I Urban Estate, Panchkula(hereinafter
referred to as ''the suit land").
4. Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred
to as "HUDA") had allotted the suit land to one Shri Vcd Prakash
Kakaria in the year 1973. Thereatler Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria, on
24.04.1980, entered into an agreement with the appellant to sell the suit
land to him on certain terms and conditions.
5. On 05.02.1985. Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria expired. leaving
behind two sons and one daughter (respondentNos. 1 to 3) as his legal
heirs. Respondent Nos.I to 3 however, sold the suit land to respondent
No.4.
6. On I 0.10.1992. the appellant filed a suit against the respondents
for a declaration that the transfer made by respondent Nos. I to 3 in
favour of respondent No.4 is null and void and not binding on the appellant,
G
that the respondents be restrained from interfering in appellant's
possession over the suit land as he claimed to be in possession of the suit
land, and lastly. for issuance of mandatory injunction against respondent
Nos. I to 3 directing them to transfer the suit land in favour of appellant.
H
SURESH KUMAR THROUGH GPA v. ANIL KAKARIA & ORS.
255
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE. J.]
7. The suit was essentially based on an agreement dated
A
24.04.1980 and the Will alleged to have been executed by late Shri Ved
Prakash Kakaria in his favour for claiming the aforementiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.