LAKHA SINGH versus BALWINDER SINGH & ANR.

LAKHA SINGH versus BALWINDER SINGH & ANR.

The Supreme Court concluded that the disputed agreement and the respondent’s case regarding payment of Rs.16,00,000/- and attendance at the Sub-Registrar’s office were fraudulent and concocted; the lower courts had overlooked vital facts and misread material evidence, rendering their concurrent findings perverse and justifying interference under Article 136; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgments and decree set aside.

Parties
Appellant Defendant: Lakha Singh; Respondent Plaintiff: Balwinder Singh; Respondent No.2: The State Bank of Patiala
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India / Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Earnest Money, Fraud and Concoction, Execution and Registration of Sale Deed, Concurrent Findings of Fact
Contract Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Earnest Money Fraud and Concoction Execution and Registration of Sale Deed Concurrent Findings of Fact

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakha Singh

Appellant Defendant

Balwinder Singh

Respondent Plaintiff

The State Bank of Patiala

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India / Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed agreement, the alleged payment of Rs.16,00,000/- and the alleged attendance at the Sub-Registrar’s office were fraudulent and concocted
  2. 2 Whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell
  3. 3 Whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs.19,00,000/- (including Rs.16,00,000/- earnest money) as alternative relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court concluded that the disputed agreement and the respondent’s case regarding payment of Rs.16,00,000/- and attendance at the Sub-Registrar’s office were fraudulent and concocted; the lower courts had overlooked vital facts and misread material evidence, rendering their concurrent findings perverse and justifying interference under Article 136; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgments and decree set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgments and decree quashed and set aside
  • Decree to be prepared accordingly