SANJIV KUMAR Vs. RAM PYARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the Courts below duly recapitulated and discussed the pleadings & evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, therefore, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same in the instant regular second appeal in this context. However, the contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sanjiv Kumar son of Sube Singh appellant-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff"), filed the suit against Krishan Kumar son of Banarsi Dass (since deceased) defendant, now being represented by his LR Ram Pyari widow of Banarsi Dass (for short "the original defendant") for a decree of possession, by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 7.8.2000 (Ex.P2) in respect of the land in dispute.

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the original defendant was the owner of the suit land. He entered into an agreement to sell (Ex.P2) in his favour for a total consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and received an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as earnest money. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 1 lac was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed on 15.9.2000. The parties were stated to have agreed that in case the original defendant fails to perform his part of contract, then, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed/registered through the process of Court of law and in case failure to perform his part of contract is on the part of the plaintiff, then, the earnest money shall be forfeited.

(3.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the original defendant has faulted in this respect. The plaintiff was stated to have marked his presence in the office of Sub Registrar, Assandh, by filing his affidavit on 15.9.2000, but the defendant did not return to get the sale deed executed and registered. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of possession for specific performance of contract against the original defendant, in the manner indicated hereinabove.