KARNAIL SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question has been decreed by the Courts below.

(2.) In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff-respondent before the trial Court was that the land in dispute was owned by Ujjagar Singh son of Ghanayya Singh son of Dulla Singh, father of appellants and proforma respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (since deceased). During his life time, Ujjagar Singh had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent vide agreement to sell dated 1.12.2001 and had received Rs. 2,50,000/- as an earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed which was to be executed on 30.11.2002. It was further the case of the plaintiff-respondent that the aforesaid agreement to sell was also signed and thumb marked by Shingara Singh respondent No. 5 in token of his consent and the aforesaid agreement also bears a note written by said Shingara Singh in his own hand. The plaintiff- respondent remained ready and willing and was still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement as per terms and conditions contained in the agreement. On the morning of 30.11.2002, plaintiff-respondent had gone to the house of Ujagar Singh with the balance amount of sale consideration and other expenses to tender the same to him and to request him to execute the sale deed of the suit land in his favour. However, on reaching there, plaintiff- respondent came to know that said Ujjagar Singh had already died about few months back. Thus, on that date the plaintiff tendered the said balance amount to the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 (i.e., the appellants as well as proforma respondents in this appeal) and requested them to execute the sale deed of the suit land in his favour. However, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, hence this suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the suit was contested. Defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 (proforma respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in this appeal) filed joint written statement taking various pleas. On merits, it was admitted that Ujjagar Singh was owner of property in dispute and the defendants were his legal representatives. All other allegations were denied and it was pleaded that Ujjagar Singh never agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff nor executed any agreement to sell in his favour as alleged. The receipt of earnest money was also denied. It was further submitted. that the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Ujjagar Singh as Karta and there was no legal necessity to sell the same and said Ujjagar Singh had no right to enter into the alleged agreement.