RAKBIR KAUR Vs. NASIB KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) Heard. This application has been filed by the appellant to the effect that Sunita Gill-respondent No.2 has already died and her legal representatives, namely, Ravinder Singh Gill and Namita Gill-respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively, who are already on record in their individual capacity, be brought on record as legal representatives of said respondent. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Main Case

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant, Rakbir Kaur, having lost before the trial court and the first appellate court in her suit for possession of the land in dispute measuring 35 kanal 7 marla situated in village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 30.4.1990, has come up with the present second appeal, challenging the judgments and decrees passed against her by the courts below.

(3.) The plaintiff pleaded in her plaint that defendants/respondents agreed to sell the land in dispute in her favour at the rate of ` 3.5 lakhs per acre vide agreement to sell dated 30.4.1990 and received ` 4.25 lakhs as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on 25.6.1990. She had been contacting the defendants for executing the sale in her favour but they had been getting time on one excuse or the other. On 22.4.1998, Satwant Singh Gill-defendant No.2, having joint interest with the other defendants received ` 95,000/- and the date for the execution of the sale deed was extended upto 30.4.1994. She had been asking the defendants to execute the sale deed but they had been putting off the matter on the pretext that they wanted to get an income tax clearance certificate also. She further pleaded that when she obtained copies of the jamabandies for the year 1988- 1989 and 1990-1991 on 2.4.1996, she came to know that the defendants have already sold much of the land which they had agreed to sell in her favour. She is entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered in her favour in respect of the remaining land which still stands in the name of the defendants. Throughout she had always been ready and willing to complete the sale transaction but it is on account of failure of the defendants that the same could not be done.