MOHAN SINGH Vs. KULWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S /Shri Mohan Singh and Harminder Singh sons of Shri Kartar Singh, who were defendants in the trial Court, have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, who granted a decree for joint possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 26.8.1989 with costs and called upon the defendants/appellants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on receipt of balance amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- within two months, failing which the plaintiff/respondent shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed by execution of the decree.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a suit for joint possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.8.1989 was filed by Kulwinder Singh alleging that the defendants/appellants executed the agreement to sell dated 26.8.1989 with regard to 2/3rd share in the house for consideration of Rs. 23,50,000/- and they received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of earnest money. It was agreed upon between the parties that Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid to the vendors on or before 16.9.1989 and the remaining amount at the time of registration of the sale deed which was to be executed by 25.3.1990. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Rs. 1,00,000/- were paid to the defendants on 16.9.1989 against a receipt. Further, the date of performance was extended by mutual consent by the parties firstly upto 31.7.1990 and, thereafter upto 1.10.1990 because the defendants could not get clearance certificate from the income-tax authorities. It was alleged by the plaintiff that after the extension of time he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, the defendants after 31.7.1990 threatened to sell the property to some other person, as a result of that the plaintiff had to file a suit for injunction against the defendants praying that the defendants should not alienate the suit property to any person. Thereafter, withdrawing the previous suit with the permission of the Court, he filed the present suit for joint possession by way of specific performance on the plea that the defendants are not inclined to discharge their obligation under the contract.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed a re-joinder to the written statement in which he reiterated the allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues :