Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an agreement of sale dated 28.11.1984, under which the appellant, Nahar Singh, claimed that the respondent, Harnak Singh, had agreed to sell 4 bighas 15 biswas of land at Rs.7,500 per bigha and to execute the sale deed by 15 June 1985. The appellant alleged that he had paid earnest money and was ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.23,000 before the sub-registrar, but the respondent failed to execute the sale deed. The appellant also mentioned that Rs.2.50 was paid as writing charges for a pronote of Rs.11,050, but no cash was actually paid. The respondent denied the agreement and claimed that the appellant had borrowed Rs.11,050 and executed a pronote, for which he filed a separate recovery suit. Both suits were tried together. The trial court by common judgment dated 31.1.1990 dismissed the respondent's recovery suit and decreed the appellant's suit for specific performance. The respondent filed appeals and the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, by judgment dated 13.9.1994, held that the agreement Exhibit D1 was not enforceable because the property was vague and unidentifiable, and that the agreement had been deliberately undervalued to save stamp duty and registration fee, making it void on the ground of public policy. Consequently, the lower appellate court dismissed both suits. The respondent's second appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed on 9.5.1995, with the High Court agreeing with the lower appellate court on the vagueness of the property. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court considered the main issue of whether the lower appellate court and High Court were right in refusing specific performance on the ground that the property was vague and unidentifiable. The appellant argued that the courts below had not found the agreement invalid and hence specific performance should be granted. The respondent contended that the findings of vagueness and unidentifiability were unassailable and no court would pass an unenforceable decree. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had failed to consider identifiability, but the lower appellate court had examined the evidence and found that the agreement did not contain exact area, boundaries, length, breadth, or starting point for measurement, and the khasra numbers claimed by the appellant were not in the agreement. The Court held that it is well settled that unless the property in question is identifiable, no decree can be granted. The Court also noted the finding that the agreement was undervalued to save stamp duty and registration fee and was thus opposed to public policy. Since the appellant could not dislodge these findings, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Law - Specific Performance - Identifiability of Property - General Principles of Law - The trial court decreed specific performance without examining identifiability, but the lower appellate court found the agreement Exhibit D1 lacked exact area, boundaries, length, breadth, and starting point for measurement, and the claimed khasra numbers 435 and 436 were not included in the agreement. Held that unless the property for which relief is sought is identifiable, no decree can be granted, and the concurrent findings of vagueness and unidentifiability were not assailable and warranted dismissal of the suit. B) Contract Law - Agreement Opposed to Public Policy - Void for Under-Valuation to Save Stamp Duty and Registration Fee - General Principles of Contract Law - The lower appellate court found the parties deliberately undervalued the agreement to save stamp duty and registration fee, making it void on the ground of public policy. Held that this finding, which was not assailed before the Supreme Court, provided an additional ground to deny specific performance. C) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition under Article 136 - Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The Supreme Court reiterated that it would not interfere under Article 136 with the concurrent factual findings of the lower appellate court and High Court regarding vagueness and unenforceability of the agreement, as the appellant's counsel could not dislodge those findings. Held that the case did not warrant interference and the appeal was dismissed without costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court and the High Court were right in refusing the grant of specific performance on the finding that the property for which the agreement was entered into is vague and unidentifiable, and whether the agreement was void on the ground of public policy due to undervaluation to save stamp duty and registration fee.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that unless the property for which relief is sought is identifiable, no decree can be granted. It found no reason to interfere under Article 136 with the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and High Court regarding vagueness, unidentifiability, and public policy. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance cannot be granted unless the property in question is identifiable
- Agreement for sale of land which is vague as to area
- boundaries
- and measurement is unenforceable
- Agreement deliberately undervalued to save stamp duty and registration fee is void on ground of public policy
- Supreme Court would not interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse
