RAJINDER PAL SHARMA Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crux of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Raj Kumar son of Kapoor Chand respondent-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") filed the suit against Rajinder Pal Sharma appellant-defendant (for short "the defendant") for a decree of possession, by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.8.2005 (Ex.PW1/1).

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the defendant entered into an agreement to sell (Ex.PW1/1) with him, in respect of the land in dispute, situated in the area of village Salarheri, Tehsil and District Ambala, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,85,000/- and received Rs. 2,80,000/- as earnest money, which was recognized in the agreement to sell. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,05,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant before the Sub-Registrar, Ambala Cantt at the time of registration of the sale deed dated 5.9.2005. He (plaintiff) has always been and is still ready & willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant avoided the execution of the sale deed on the one pretext or the other, as he was never ready and willing to fulfill his part of contract. The plaintiff claimed that on 5.9.2005, he went to the office of Sub Registrar, alongwith the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,05,000/- etc. for getting the sale deed executed and registered, in terms of the agreement to sell (Ex.PW1/1). He also informed the defendant in this regard, requested him to reach the office of Sub Registrar on 5.9.2005 and to receive the remaining amount of consideration for registration of the sale deed, but in vain. He (plaintiff) got his presence marked by moving an application (Ex.PW2/3).

(3.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that he always remained and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant defaulted in this behalf despite legal notice, which necessitated him to file the present suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the contract of sale, in the manner indicated hereinbefore.