KEHAR SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by defendant Kehar Singh who was successful in trial court but has remained unsuccessful in lower appellate court.

(2.) Amrik Singh respondent filed suit against appellant for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1998 and in the alternative for recovery of Rs 2,60,000/- alleging that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 20.4.1998 for Rs 2,60,000/- and received Rs 50,000/- as earnest money and executed the aforesaid agreement. The plaintiff also paid Rs 15,000/- to the defendant later on. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 20.10.1998. On the Regular Second Appeal No. 1092 of 2008 said date, the plaintiff went to the office of the Sub Registrar as well as to the house of the defendant with balance sale consideration and asked the defendant to give original documents of suit property and to deliver 'no objection certificate' (NOC) from the revenue authorities or other concerned competent authorities but the defendant put off the matter. When the defendant failed to prove his ownership over the suit property, the plaintiff demanded back his earnest money but the defendant did not perform his part of the agreement. The defendant cheated the plaintiff knowing that the defendant was not owner of the suit land. The plaintiff later on learnt that one Narinder Kapoor was owner of the suit property and was in possession thereof.

(3.) The defendant's stand is that he received Rs 40,000/- only as earnest money instead of Rs 50,000/-. He also did not receive further amount of Rs 15,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant went to the office of Sub Registrar on 20.10.1998 to execute the sale deed as per agreement but the plaintiff did not turn up as he did not have requisite money to get the sale deed executed. Defendant always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the plaintiff committed breach thereof. Accordingly, as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the earnest money stood forfeited. It was also pleaded that defendant was owner of the suit property and Narinder Kapoor has nothing to do therewith. Various other pleas were also raised.