SAT PAUL SINGH Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has come up in first appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Judge whereby the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated October 4,1975 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff has preferred Cross- Objections No. 4-CI of 1979.

(2.) The facts : An agreement to sell dated October 4, 1975 with regard to the property in dispute was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement stipulated that the defendant was owner of the agricultural land and the house mentioned therein. The agricultural land was to be sold at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per kanal and the house for Rs. 6000/-. The defendant received Its. 1000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell and the remaining consideration was to be received at the time of the execution of the sale deed which was to be executed by May 31, 1976. The defendant in breach of the terms of the agreement to sell started negotiations with other persons for transferring the disputed property to them. The plaintiff filed a suit on January 1, 1976 claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating in any manner to any other person except the plaintiff land measuring 3 kanals 2-1/2 marlas out of 6 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 66, Khatauni No. 248, bearing Khasra Nos. 181(0-3), 20(3-6), 211(0-13), 222(1-15), 356(0-14), 357(2-14) entered in Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and the house marked ABCD shown red in the plan Ex. PI bounded as East : Street, West House of Parma and Har Dass, North : House of Rakha and Janak and South : House of Tirath s/o Udho situated in the area of village Pahlewal, P.S. and Tehsil Garhshankar. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn on July 20,1976 since in the meantime right to sue for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement had accrued to the plaintiff. The defendant did not execute the sale deed in furtherance of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff necessitating the filing of the suit for the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement pleaded that be had 1/3 share in the house and 1/2 share in the agricultural land and was not the owner of the entire property mentioned in the agreement. He further pleaded that he had received Rs. 400/- at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell and not Rs. 1000/- as alleged. He denied the terms and conditions of the agreement. He also pleaded that the plaintiff was not willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff insisted on claiming more then the defendant's share in the suit property and the sale deed could not be executed. He also pleaded that the suit was barred under Order 2 rule 2 Civil Procedure Code.