LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-131

LAL SINGH Vs. GIAN SINGH

Decided On January 13, 2010
LAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
GIAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.4807-CI of 2009 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, delay of 47 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. Application is disposed of.

(2.) The appellants who claim to be bona fide purchasers of the property in dispute have challenged the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby while modifying the findings of the trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed in toto holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance with possession of the suit property, with a further direction that on payment of balance consideration amount, LRs of defendant No.1 shall execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) Briefly stated, respondent-Gian Singh filed suit for possession of the disputed property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.5.1998 alleging therein that defendant No.1 (predecessor- in-interest of the appellants and respondents No.2 to 6) agreed to sell away his agricultural land measuring 32 kanals 2 marlas for a consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- on 29.5.1998 and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him as an earnest money and part payment of the sale price and executed a separate receipt. The defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed on 28.5.1999 (i.e the last date for executing the sale deed). The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Palwal with the balance sale consideration and sufficient amount to pay stamp and registration expenses on that day. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform the agreement to sell dated 29.5.1998. However, defendant No.1 has failed to perform his part of the contract and in order to avoid the performance of agreement to sell, has executed a lease deed for a period of 99 years of part of land in dispute fraudulently and intentionally in favour of defendant No.2 (respondent No.7) and thus, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance and possession of the suit land.