LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. SANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for impleading legal representatives (in short 'LRs') of Nasib Chand- respondent (since deceased).

(2.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgments and decrees passed by the Courts to express grievance denying specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.06.2000 in respect of land measuring 41 kanal 11 marlas detailed in head note of the plaint as the Courts have allowed alternative relief of recovery to the following effect:-

(3.) Counsel for the appellant would argue that agreement to sell dated 30.06.2000 has been proved in accordance with law whereby the respondent/defendant agreed to alienate the suit land for sale consideration of Rs.6 lakhs out of which Rs.3 lakhs was paid towards earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 01.07.2002. In between, another sum of Rs.2,80,000/- was paid to the respondent vide receipt dated 04.01.2002 Ex.P4. It is further submitted that vide endorsement dated 28.06.2002 on the back of agreement, date for execution of sale deed was extended upto 01.08.2003. The appellant went to the office of Sub Registrar on the target date and he got his presence marked. It is vehemently argued that appellant always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement who had already paid Rs.5,80,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.6 lakhs agreed between the parties, therefore, impugned judgments and decrees may be modified by allowing principal relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court Abhey Singh and others Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others, 2009(3) PLR 490, wherein it has been held that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement with regard to sale of immovable property, the normal rule is to allow specific performance and it is only in rare circumstances that said relief may be denied.