RAJ KUMAR Vs. DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the Courts below duly recapitulated and described the factual matrix of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, therefore, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same. However, for facilitation, the bare minimum facts, that need a necessary mention for deciding the present regular second appeal, are that Darshan Singh, Chand Singh and Mukand Singh sons of Karnail Singh respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiffs") filed the present suit against Raj Kumar son of Jagan Nath appellant-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as "the defendant") for a decree of possession of the disputed shop.

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that they are owners of the disputed shop. They executed an agreement dated 14.12.2000 to mortgage their shop for a sum of Rs. 25000/- with the defendant. At the time of execution of the said agreement to mortgage, the plaintiffs received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money and the physical possession of the shop was delivered to the defendant. The remaining amount was to be paid by the defendant at the time of execution and registration of the mortgage deed, to be executed and registered on or before 15.12.2001. They always remained ready and willing to perform their part of agreement, but the defendant, instead of executing and registering the mortgage deed on or before 15.12.2001, filed a civil suit against them in breach of agreement and flatly refused to fulfill his part of contract in this respect.

(3.) Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the plaintiffs that since the defendant did not fulfill his part of contract and refused to execute and register the mortgage deed, so, his possession became un-authorized. They repeatedly asked the defendant to execute and register the mortgage deed and to pay the balance amount, but in vain, which necessitated them (plaintiffs) to file the present suit. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for decree of possession against the defendant, in the manner indicated here-in-above.