HARJEET SINGH GUJRAL Vs. SURENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Harjeet Singh Gujral, who was successful in the trial court, but has been partly unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that defendants agreed to sell the suit land measuring 39 kanals 06 marlas to the plaintiff @ Rs.1,15,000/- per acre and received Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 24.03.1999. In the agreement, however, rate was inadvertently mentioned to be Rs.1,45,000/- per acre. Sale deed was to be executed up to 23.06.1999. On 15.04.1999, defendant no.1 received further amount of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of all the defendants and mentioned the correct rate as Rs.1,15,000/- per acre and extended the date of sale deed up to 23.08.1999 vide receipt dated 15.04.1999. Thereafter, defendant no.2 also received Rs.30,000/- on 08.06.1999 on behalf of all the defendants and executed separate receipt. Mutation of inheritance of Jagdish " father of defendant no.1 was to be got corrected in his favour before executing the sale deed. PLAINTIFF was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but defendants committed breach thereof. Accordingly, plaintiff sought specific performance of the impugned agreement along with ancillary reliefs.

(2.) DEFENDANTS, in the written statement, admitted the execution of the impugned agreement, but pleaded that plaintiff has fabricated the same by reciting payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas in fact, defendants did not receive the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, receipt of Rs.10,000/- by defendant no.1 on 15.04.1999 and receipt of Rs.30,000/- by defendant no.2 on 08.06.1999 was admitted. The defendants alleged that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants even went to the office of Sub Registrar on 23.06.1999. It was denied that date of execution of sale deed was extended to 23.08.1999. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file including files of the courts below, whereas none has appeared for respondents in spite of last opportunity granted for today. None either appeared for the respondents on the preceding three dates of hearing. Execution of the impugned agreement has been admitted by the defendants in their written statement as well as in their reply to application for temporary injunction. Defendants have also admitted receipt of Rs.10,000/- by defendant no.1 on 15.04.1999 and receipt of Rs.30,000/- by defendant no.2 on 08.06.1999, vide receipts Ex.PW-1/4 and Ex.PW-1/5 respectively. Perusal of these receipts also reveals that there is reference to agreement dated 24.03.1999 in these receipts. Defendants have also pleaded that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Thus, execution of the impugned agreement by defendants stand admitted. The said agreement has also been proved by the plaintiff by leading cogent evidence.