Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Manish Aggarwal vs Sukhdev Singh on 7 January, 2025
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 186187 OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 1090810909 OF 2024]
MANISH AGGARWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The present case arises out of a pure civil
proceeding initiated at the behest of the appellant, who
filed a suit for specific performance, being Civil Suit No.
244 of 2007, where respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 were the
original defendants, and Respondent No. 1Sukhdev
Singh, who was the subsequent purchaser of the suit
property, was later added as a defendant in the said
suit.
3. The case of the appellantplaintiff before the Trial
Signature Not Verified
Court was that an initial amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ was
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.01.29
17:30:32 IST
Reason:
given by the appellant to the original defendants
1
Kulwant Singh, Jaswant Singh and Ranjit Kaur on
06.10.2005 as initial amount to seal the deal for
purchase of the suit property i.e. land admeasuring
46K17M Khata Nos. 378/383574/65 Mustatil 97 Killa
78731415/117/218/1263/26/2 Jamabandi of
the year 19992000 situated in Agawar Gujaran and
Tehsil Jagraon.
4. Thereafter, on 26.10.2005, an Agreement to Sell
was executed between the appellant and respondent no.
2 and Ranjit Kaur (now deceased) in relation to the suit
property. Rs.30 Lakhs were given in cash at the time of
execution of Agreement to Sell by the appellant. Rs.20
Lakhs were to be paid within 6 months of execution of
Agreement to Sell, and the Sale Deed was to be executed
6 months after the payment of Rs.20 Lakhs. Thereafter,
the appellant made several efforts to pay this sum of
Rs.20 Lakhs as agreed, but defendants kept evading
him. Finally, on 23.06.2006, the appellant went to the
house of the defendants to give the amount of Rs.20
Lakhs and get their endorsement for the same on the
Agreement to Sell.
2
5. It is the case of the appellant that on the pretext of
getting the endorsement of one of the defendants i.e.
Ranjit Kaur on the original Agreement to Sell, the other
defendant i.e. Jaswant Singh took the document inside
the house and subsequently, what was returned to the
appellant was a forged document purporting to be the
original Agreement to Sell. The appellant immediately
realized that what was handed over to him was not the
original Agreement to Sell, and promptly filed FIR No.
199 of 2006 at Jagraon Police Station under Sections
420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC against the
defendants.
6. It is an admitted fact that in the above criminal
case respondent no.2Jaswant Singh and one Kuljit
Singh were convicted under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120B IPC. Their appeal against conviction and
sentence was dismissed. Now, their revision is pending
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the
convicts are on bail. So much as to the details of the
criminal case.
3
7. The appellant, at the same time, had also filed a
civil suit for specific performance, where a written
statement was filed by the defendantsrespondents
stating that they have sold the suit property to Sukhdev
Singh on 24.10.2007 and consequently, Sukhdev Singh,
who is Respondent no. 1 in the present matter, was also
made a defendant.
8. In the civil suit, all the issues were decided in
favour of the plaintiffappellant and against the
defendantsrespondents, and suit was decreed in favour
of plaintiffappellant. Thereafter, First Appeals were
filed by the defendantsrespondents, which were also
dismissed. The defendantsrespondents preferred
Second Appeals before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act and
the same was allowed vide the impugned judgment.
Now, AppellantPlaintiff is before us.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties
and have gone through the judgment of the Trial Court,
First Appellate Court as well as the impugned judgment
4
of the High Court.
10. At this stage, before going into the merits of the
case, we may note that in the State of Punjab, what is
not applicable is Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (‘CPC’), but Section 41 of the Punjab Courts
Act. In other words, it is not necessary for the Second
Appellate Court to formulate ‘substantial question of
law’ before it decides a case. Nevertheless, it does not
mean that the court can appreciate the facts as well as
law in its Second Appeal jurisdiction as can be done by
a First Appellate Court. Undoubtedly, the powers are
not as limited as that of other Courts in Second Appeal,
where Section 100 CPC is applicable, but still, it goes
with certain limitations.
11. This has been explained by this Court in
Satyender and Others v. Saroj and others reported
in (2022) 17 SCC 154 and Shivali Enterprises v.
Godawari (Deceased) through LRs and others
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1211.
12. The Second Appellate Court, in this case, however,
has totally misdirected itself while appreciating its
5
powers under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act,
which clearly states that it can reappreciate the facts
and the evidence in case the findings of the trial court
and the First Appellate Court are perverse.
Nevertheless, the impugned judgment does not provide
cogent reasons to show how the findings of the Trial
Court and First Appellate Court are perverse and liable
for interference by the High Court.
13. Now, coming to the merits of the case. Before the
Trial Court, the appellant examined PW1Pawan Kumar,
who was the witness to the original receipt of initial
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ on 06.10.2005; PW2Satpal,
who was the witness to the abovementioned original
receipt and original Agreement to Sell, as well as the
endorsement to receipt of Rs.20 Lakhs on the back of
the forged document; PW4Navdeep Gupta, who was the
handwriting expert. The appellant got himself examined
as PW3.
14. The depositions of these witnesses in favour of the
plaintiff proving the veracity of the original Agreement to
Sell were righty believed by the Trial Court, and affirmed
6
by the First Appellate Court. In addition, the Trial Court
also took note of the abovementioned criminal case
against, inter alia, respondent no.2 and observed that
the execution of the original Agreement to Sell also
stands proved by the statement given under Section 313
of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) of coaccused
Kuljit Singh, who was the broker in the deal between
the parties herein. The exact finding of the Trial Court
was as follows:
“35. The execution of agreement in
question by Defendants No.1 and 2 also
stands proved with the statement of Kuljit
Singh recorded in criminal case u/s. 313
Cr.P.C. on 13.01.2015, certified copy of
which has been proved on record as Ex.P
9, where Kuljit Singh has stated that he
acted as a middle man to get the deal
struck between the parties and original
agreement was prepared in his presence
signed by the parties and the witnesses
in his presence and he had also put his
signatures on the original agreement.
This statement not only proves the
existence of original agreement Ex.P2 but
also its due execution by Defendants
No.1 and 2.”The High Court in the impugned judgment has
reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and
7
First Appellate Court on the ground that both the lowercourts erred in relying on the Section 313 CrPC
statement of said coaccused Kuljit Singh since it did
not satisfy the requirements of Section 33 of the
Evidence Act. In doing so, the High Court totally ignored
the fact that the original Agreement to Sell stood proved
before the Trial Court even without reliance being
placed on said Section 313 CrPC statement. The Section
313 CrPC statement was only an additional finding in
favour of the appellant by the Trial Court. In other
words, the High Court may have been correct in holding
that a Section 313 CrPC statement does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, but in
any case, the execution of Agreement to Sell stood
proved even without considering the abovementioned
Section 313 CrPC statement, and hence the appellant’s
suit for specific performance was rightly decreed by the
Trial Court.
15. Therefore, in our considered view, the High Court
erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court to the
8
extent that they relate to decreeing the suit for specific
performance in favour of the appellant.
16. We thus allow these appeals and set aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court.
17. Interim order(s), if any, shall stand vacated.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………..………………………..J.
[ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]
…………..………….……………..J.
[ PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ]
New Delhi;
JANUARY 07, 2025.
9
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 10908-10909 of 2024
(arising out of impugned final judgment and orders dated 30.01.2024
in RSA No. 5792/2019 and RSA No. 566/2020 passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh)
MANISH AGGARWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 112648/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT) (IA No. 112650/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
(IA No. 118967/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 07-01-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ivan, AOR
Mr. Alok Singh, Adv.
Mr. Naveen Soni, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vijay Jindal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Harsheen M. Palli, Adv.
Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR
Mr. Atul Aggarwal, Adv.
Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
10
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
11
[ad_1]
Source link