JATINDER MOHAN Vs. AMAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals have been preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff, who had initially filed the Suit in the Court of Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kharar against the Respondents seeking a declaration to the effect that he is in possession of the disputed land as described in the Heading of the original Plaint, by virtue of an Agreement to Sell dated 12.11.2001 executed in his favour by the Defendants/Respondents, after he had paid an amount of Rs.10 Lacs, out of which an amount of Rs.3 Lacs was given in cash and balance of Rs.7 Lacs was delivered by way of three separate Cheques drawn on Allahabad Bank Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. The Agreement was for transfer of Defendants' 2/3rd share of land at the rate of Rs.40 Lacs per Killa. The date fixed for execution of the Sale Deed in pursuance of the aforesaid Agreement was 20.8.2002. It was the Appellant's contention in the Plaint that although he was in possession of the land, but the Defendants not only have been denying this fact but had also refused to execute the Sale Deed as agreed upon in spite of his repeated requests. He therefore, sought the aforesaid declaration of being in possession of the suit land and for a Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.11.2001 by directing the Defendants to execute the requisite Sale Deed after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.93 Lacs. He had also made an alternative prayer for recovery of double amount of earnest money paid by him i.e. Rs.20 Lacs apart from damages to the tune of Rs.50 Lacs, and an injunction to restrain the Defendants from alienating the said land in favour of any third person.

(2.) The Suit was contested on behalf of Defendants who filed their Written Statements denying the material averments of the Plaintiff. They specifically denied the Claim that the Plaintiff had been put in possession of the suit land. In addition, it was also their contention that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract as agreed by them, and had even remained present before the Sub Registrar on 20.8.2002 for the entire working hours of the day to execute the Sale Deed, but the Plaintiff himself did not come there, on account of which, the earnest money paid by him stood forfeited in terms of the Agreement. As such according to the Defendants, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any Decree of declaration since he was neither in possession of the land, nor was entitled to the Decree of Specific Performance as he himself was not ready and willing to stand by terms regarding the date and time mentioned in the Agreement, and that he was also not entitled to any refund or compensation, since in pursuance of the specific written Agreement between the parties, the amount of earnest money so paid by him stood to be forfeited on account of his default in paying the balance on the stipulated date.

(3.) The Ld. Trial Court decreed the Suit partially in favour of Plaintiff by granting him the alternative relief of refund of double the earnest money i.e. Rs.20 Lacs in all, with Statutory interest thereupon.