MAHI PAL RAWAT Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant (defendant No.2 in the civil suit) challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for possession by way of specific performance of the contract dated 14.5.1999, executed by respondent No.2 (defendant No.1 in the suit) in favour of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) for sale of the property in dispute was decreed, and the defendants were also directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff- respondent.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that plaintiff averred in his suit that respondent No.2 who was owner of the suit property entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.1 on 14.5.1999 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and received a sum of Rs.70,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.4.2000, which was later on extended upto 15.3.2001. Despite notice respondent No.2 did not turn up to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 as stipulated. It is further the case of respondent No.1 that he had performed his part of the contract and had kept intact the balance sale consideration whereas respondent No.2 had never been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. Respondent No.1 also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit property and from alienating the same to any other person except him.

(3.) Upon notice defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte. The appellant was impleaded as a party (defendant No.2 in the suit) and in response to the notice issued , he filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it was averred that he had not entered into any agreement of sale, therefore, he was not liable to pay any earnest money as alleged. It was further averred that he purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 20.8.2001 for a valuable consideration. It was denied that the sale deed in his favour was null and void. It was however, admitted that after execution of the sale deed in his favour notice dated 29.9.2001 was received from the plaintiff. It was further submitted that plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell, and dismissal of the suit was prayed.