DIDAR SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff to the suit. The learned trial Court had dismissed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.9.2000. The lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court regarding execution of the agreement to sell dated 7.9.2000 but, however, had granted the alternative relief in favour of the plaintiff-appellant-purchaser by holding that he is entitled to recovery of Rs.One lac, paid as earnest money along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1.7.2001 till recovery of the amount.

(2.) Briefly stated, it was pleaded in the suit that defendant-respondent-Mukhtiar Singh had executed an agreement dated 7.9.2000 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for sale of 80/380th share measuring 4 Kanals out of the land, detail and description of, which has been given in the plaint. It was pleaded that earnest money of Rs.One lac was paid and defendant-respondent had agreed to execute the sale deed of the suit land on or before 30.6.2001. All the expenses of the sale deed were to be borne out by the plaintiff-appellant and in failure of the plaintiff-appellant to get the sale deed executed, the earnest money was to be forfeited and in case the defendant-respondent failed to keep his promise, the plaintiff-appellant was well within his rights to get the sale deed executed through Court. It was further pleaded in the suit that defendant-respondent had delivered possession of the suit land at the time of execution of the agreement. Plaintiff-appellant remained ready and willing to purchase the suit property on payment of remaining sale consideration. According to the plaintiff-appellant 30.6.2001 and 1.7.2011 were holidays, therefore, he remained present before the Sub Registrar, Chamkaur Sahib on 2.7.2001 along with remaining sale consideration and the expenses which were to be incurred for registration of the sale deed.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant-respondent appeared. He raised some preliminary objections and also denied execution of the agreement dated 7.9.2000 being false and fabricated.