JEET KUAR Vs. MISHRI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court, but the decree has been modified in appeal by the Lower Appellate Court, substituting the direction for specific performance with an order for refund of the admitted earnest.

(2.) By a registered agreement to sell dtd. 13/6/1974 executed by Mishri Lal in favour of Smt. Jeet Kaur, Jeet Kaur, the plaintiff, alleged that Mishri Lal had covenanted to transfer for a sale consideration of Rs.9000.00 his one-fourth share in the property, subject matter of contract. The property, agreed to be sold in terms of the registered agreement dtd. 13/6/1974, shall be called hereinafter as 'the suit property'. The details of the suit property are: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_135_LAWS(ALL)11_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) According to Smt. Jeet Kaur, the sole plaintiff-appellant, now represented by her heirs and LRs, plaintiff-appellant Nos.1/1 and 1/2, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiff', executed an agreement to sell dtd. 13/6/1974, for short, 'the suit agreement' covenanting that the defendant, Mishri Lal had received in earnest a sum of Rs.7900.00 until time of execution of the last mentioned agreement; the balance of Rs.1100.00 was covenanted to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff's further case is that the defendant, Mishri Lal agreed that he would secure for the suit property a bhumidhari sanad and within the time period of a month of its receipt, would execute a registered sale deed, as covenanted, upon receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.1100.00. The defendant, Mishri Lal, who is now represented on record by his sole heir and LR, Natthi Singh, his son, as respondent No.1/1, shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendant'.