NAGINA JUDGE Vs. PURSHOTAM SINGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above detailed two regular second appeals between the same sets of parties, having arisen in the same very civil suit between them bearing No.RT.294 of 14.10.2006/03.04.2008/16.12.2011 and having been disposed off through a common judgment and decree dated 07.03.2011, on account of common question of law and facts involved, are being taken up and disposed off together by way of this common judgment.

(2.) Plaintiffs Parshotam Singla, Sanjeev Garg, Om Parkash Bansal and Kamal Mahajan (now respondents) filed against defendants Ajit Singh Judge, Nagina Judge and Shah-e-Naaz Judge, father and two daughters respectively (latter two being appellants before this Court, the father being holder of general power of attorney on behalf of the daughters), a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2004 in respect of the land measuring 24 Bighas 4 Biswas duly detailed and described in the head note of the plaint with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents, servants and attorneys etc. from selling, alienating, mortgaging, encumbering or transferring the land in question in any manner whatsoever. The Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), S.A.S. Nagar Mohali through judgment and decree dated 07.03.2011 decreed the suit and which findings were upheld in the impugned judgment of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali who vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013 dismissed the appeal of the appellant/defendants. That is how these two appeals have come about and are thus being taken up together.

(3.) The brief facts that are essential to be highlighted before venturing into the relative merits of the case of the two sides, are that undisputedly Ajit Singh Judge son of Sunder Singh Judge happens to be the owner in possession along with his two daughters Nagina Judge and Shah-e-Naaz Judge of the land duly detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. The father also is the duly constituted attorney of the daughters. The plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a sale agreement dated 03.02.2004 regarding sale of this land measuring 24 Bighas 4 Biswas. The agreed rate was Rs. 34,76,000/- per acre (one acre approximately equal to 4 Bighas). Out of the total sale consideration, Rs. 30.00 lacs were paid in advance and as per the terms and conditions reduced into writing on the same very day Rs. 10.00 lacs were to be paid on or before 31.03.2004 and the balance Rs.10.00 lacs on or before 31.05.2004 before the Sub-Registrar, Dera Bassi. The plaintiffs alleged that they were ready and willing to undergo their part of the contract, ready with the balance sale consideration amount but the defendants had backed out of the same. It is clamed that on 31.03.2004 the plaintiffs tried to contact defendant No.1 but to no avail and on the same day they went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Dera Bassi along with Rs. 10.00 lacs and waited for the defendants between 9:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m. but the defendants failed to turn up and they got their presence marked and attested by the Executive Magistrate, Dera Bassi. It is further alleged that even after 31.03.2004 the plaintiffs tried to contact defendant Ajit Singh and in the process had prepared demand drafts (detailed in the plaint) in all numbering six for a sum of Rs. 9.35 lacs in the name of the defendants and Rs. 10.65 lacs was with them in cash to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed including the money for paying expenses for the purchase of stamp papers and registration fee etc. but the defendants tried to be evasive. Alleging that the very intention of the defendants from the inception of this agreement was deceptive and after receiving the amount their intention has become mala fide. The plaintiffs feeling desperate and desolate contacted the defendants on 30.08.2004 to enable them to buy stamp papers as the same in view of the amount involved were not available at Dera Bassi and had to be purchased from Treasury Office at Rajpura regarding which they appeared before the concerned Executive Magistrate and got their affidavit attested to this effect. Thus, claiming that the defendants have committed breach of the terms of the contract, sought invocation of the judicial intervention seeking specific performance of this agreement to sell.