Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8575   OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19735/2006)

NIDHAN SINGH (D) TH LRS.                   Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

SANTA SINGH (D) TH LRS.                     Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior  

counsel  in  support  of  this  appeal  and  Ms.  Anita  

Sahani,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents.  This  appeal  seeks  to  challenge  the  

judgment and order dated 5th July, 2006 rendered by  

Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  at  Chandigarh  in  

Regular First Appeal No. 185 of 1980, affirming the  

judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the  Sub  Judge,  1st  

Class, Moga, in Suit No.314 of 1977 which was filed  

by the respondent.  

3. The respondent Santa Singh (since deceased)  

had filed a suit for specific performance of the

Page 2

2

agreement dated  19.7.1977 by  which the  respondent  

had agreed to purchase half share of the land which  

belonged to one Bhan Singh, brother of the appellant  

Nidhan  Singh  (since  deceased),  in  Village  

Takhanwadh,  Tehsil  Moga.  The  agreed  amount  was  

Rs.60,500/- out of which a sum of Rs.3000/- was paid  

immediately. The brother of the appellant-defendant  

had created a mortgage on the land and a sum of  

Rs.5,000/- was due to be paid to the Bank.  The  

respondent was to make that payment. Unfortunately,  

Bhan Singh, who had signed that agreement, died on  

2.11.1977 and then the appellant declined to execute  

the agreement which led the respondent to file the  

suit on 22.11.1977.   

4. Various issues were raised in the suit and  

after having framed the issues, the Trial Court came  

to the conclusion that the  respondent plaintiff was  

ready  and  willing  to  perform  his  part  of  the  

agreement  and  had  made  out  a  case  of  specific  

performance.  The  suit  was  therefore  decreed.  The  

appeal  against  the  order  of  the  Trial  Court  was  

dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal, by  

special  leave,  by  the  heirs  and  legal

Page 3

3

representatives of the defendant Nidhan Singh.   

5. We have perused the judgments rendered by the  

Trial Court as well as the High Court and heard the  

counsel for the parties. The only issue raised by  

Mr. Neeraj  Jain, learned  senior counsel  appearing  

for the appellants is that if the disputed sale was  

to be permitted, in view of Section 12 of the Punjab  

Land  Reforms  Act,  1972,  the  landholding  of  the  

respondent-plaintiff  would  have  gone  beyond  the  

permissible limit, and therefore, such an agreement  

could  not  have  been  held  to  be  a  valid  one.  In  

defence,  a  decree  for  partition  dated  10.9.1974  

between the respondent-plaintiff and his sons in a  

suit filed by his sons in 1974, which decree was  

passed in favour of his sons, was relied upon by the  

respondents.  Consequently,  the  landholding  of  

respondent-plaintiff  would  not  be  beyond  the  

permissible limit.  It was contended on behalf of  

the appellants that the said decree was a collusive  

one.  The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court  

declined to accept that objection of the appellant.  

We are in agreement with the Courts below on this  

aspect inasmuch as the decree was obtained way back  

in 1974 and the disputed agreement was entered into

Page 4

4

much later in 1977.   

6. In the circumstances, there is no substance  

in this appeal. Having noted these facts, we find  

that  now  the  respondents  will  have  to  pay  the  

balance  amount  of  Rs.57,500/-.  Inasmuch  as  this  

agreement was entered into in the years 1977, if the  

legal representatives of the respondent are keen on  

having  the  transaction  completed,  it  is  in  the  

fitness of things that they should pay the remaining  

amount with interest which we  direct to be paid at  

the rate of 12% per annum. If the respondents are  

not in a position to pay this amount, the decree  

will stand altered and the appellants will return  

the amount of Rs.3,000/- with interest at the rate  

of 12% per annum.  

7. We direct the  respondents to make necessary  

payment to the appellants and the Bank within three  

months from today. The respondents will clear the  

amount due to be paid to the Bank at whatever rate  

of  interest  the  Bank  will  charge,  in   case  the  

amount is not paid so far. On making the payment to  

the  Bank,  Rs.5,000/-  will  be  debited  from  the

Page 5

5

payable amount.  In the event the amount is so paid  

and the Bank dues are cleared, the sale deed will be  

executed  within  four  weeks  thereafter,  and  the  

possession of the concerned land will be handed over  

to the L.Rs. of the respondent. In case there is no  

understanding between  the parties  with respect  to  

the portion of the land to be handed over, it will  

be for the executing Court to decide as to which  

portion of the land is to be handed over to the  

respondents  in  compliance  of  the  order  of  this  

Court.  In  the  event  the  respondents  fail  to  

discharge both these obligations, it will be open to  

the appellants to return the amount of Rs.3,000/-  

with interest at 12% per annum within four weeks  

after the period of three months as provided above.  

8. This  appeal  is  disposed  of  in  the  above  

terms.  

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

.........................J (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; September 17, 2013.