Specific Performance in Property Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Sale Agreement

The case of Parminder Singh v. Gurpreet Singh revolves around a dispute between two brothers over a property sale agreement. The Supreme Court of India was called upon to decide whether the agreement was enforceable under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and whether the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion in granting specific performance.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Parminder Singh, and the respondent, Gurpreet Singh, are real brothers who jointly owned a land parcel in Village Vachhoa, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. Parminder Singh entered into a sale agreement with Gurpreet Singh on July 2, 1995, agreeing to sell his 55/118 share of the total land (equivalent to 84 Kanals) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs. The agreement specified:

Rs. 4 lakhs were paid in advance at the time of signing.
The remaining Rs. 1 lakh was to be paid at the time of executing the sale deed.
The sale deed was to be executed on or before December 13, 1995.

However, Parminder Singh failed to execute the sale deed, prompting Gurpreet Singh to file a civil suit for specific performance in 1996.

Key Issues Before the Court

Was the sale agreement genuine and legally enforceable?
Did Gurpreet Singh fulfill his obligations under the contract?
Did Parminder Singh intentionally breach the agreement?
Should the courts grant specific performance?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Parminder Singh)

Parminder Singh contended that:

The agreement was a forged document and had been fabricated by Gurpreet Singh.
He had only signed a blank paper upon his brother’s request.
He never intended to sell the land.
His signature was taken for a different legal matter but was later misused to create the sale agreement.

Arguments of the Respondent (Gurpreet Singh)

Gurpreet Singh countered by stating:

The sale agreement was genuine and valid.
He had already paid Rs. 4 lakhs in advance as per the agreement.
He was ready and willing to pay the remaining Rs. 1 lakh and execute the sale deed.
Parminder Singh breached the agreement by refusing to execute the sale deed despite multiple reminders.

Findings of the Lower Courts

The case was first heard by the Trial Court, which ruled in favor of Gurpreet Singh and decreed specific performance. The key findings were:

The sale agreement was genuine and bore the appellant’s signature.
Gurpreet Singh was ready and willing to perform his obligations.
Parminder Singh failed to prove that the agreement was fabricated.

Parminder Singh then filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, which upheld the Trial Court’s ruling. Subsequently, he filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which also dismissed his appeal, reaffirming the findings of the lower courts.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, examined the case and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

1. Agreement Was Genuine and Enforceable

The Court held that all three lower courts had thoroughly examined the evidence and unanimously found the agreement to be genuine.
It rejected Parminder Singh’s claim that he had signed a blank paper, stating that this argument was unsupported by evidence.

2. Readiness and Willingness of Gurpreet Singh

The Court emphasized that Gurpreet Singh had already paid Rs. 4 lakhs and was ready to pay the remaining Rs. 1 lakh.
Since he had fulfilled his obligations under the agreement, specific performance was justified.

3. Scope of Second Appeal Limited

The Supreme Court reiterated that second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can only be entertained if there is a substantial question of law.
Since all factual findings were in favor of Gurpreet Singh, the High Court was correct in dismissing the second appeal.

4. Specific Performance is a Discretionary Remedy

The Court noted that under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance is a discretionary remedy.
However, once three courts had exercised discretion in favor of the respondent, there was no reason to interfere.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed Parminder Singh’s appeal and upheld the lower courts’ ruling.
The sale agreement was held to be valid and enforceable.
Parminder Singh was directed to execute the sale deed in favor of Gurpreet Singh.

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the importance of honoring contractual obligations in property transactions. It reinforces the principle that a person cannot escape liability by making baseless claims of fraud.

The ruling also clarifies that once a party has demonstrated readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual terms, courts are inclined to grant specific performance unless there are strong reasons to deny relief.

For property buyers, this case serves as a precedent affirming that valid sale agreements are enforceable through courts. For sellers, it underscores the importance of honoring agreements and not attempting to back out after receiving advance payments.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Parminder Singh vs Gurpreet Singh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-07-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category