ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MANORAMA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendant has filed this appeal challenging judgement and decree dtd. 14/1/2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamal, as well as judgement and decree dtd. 5/3/2020, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby suit filed by respondents no.l and 2 (plaintiffs), has been decreed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondents no.l and 2, in this appeal (plaintiffs before the learned trial Court) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 4/6/2010, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is pleaded that defendants therein i.e. present appellant and his mother, arrayed as respondent no.3, in this appeal, are owners in possession of the house in question as described in the plaint. Defendants being owners in possession in equal shares of the double storeyed residential house, executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs on 4/6/2010 for sale consideration of Rs.25,40,000.00. The said agreement was executed in the presence of Mukesh Kumar, PW-1 and Sanjay Kumar as witnesses. Mother and son received a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00as earnest money on that date and receipt thereof was endorsed on the agreement itself. Target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 20/8/2010 with the remaining sale consideration to be paid on that date. It is further pleaded that the defendants agreed to get a clearance certificate from the Bank with which the house in question stood pledged and they further undertook to obtain 'no objection certificate' from the Bank, besides securing permission to sell from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal along with completion certificate. It is pleaded that after receipt of earnest money, the house in question was freed of the charge from HDFC Bank with which it was pledged. Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal, vide letter dtd. 14/7/2010, was also intimated, however the completion certificate as well as permission to sell was not obtained by the defendants before the target date, which was extended on two occasions i.e. firstly from 20/8/2010 to 30/8/2010 and thereafter from 30/8/2010 to 1/9/2010. On both occasions, a specific endorsement in writing in regard to the extension was carried out on the agreement to sell itself. However, as value of the property increased, defendants intentions turned dishonest and they did not come-forward for execution of the sale deed. Plaintiffs pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and remained present before the Sub-Registrar, Kamal on 1/9/2010 alongwith entire balance sale consideration. Legal notice dtd. 15/9/2010 was served, but to no avail. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit. Joint written statement was filed by the present appellant and his mother arrayed as respondent no.3 in this appeal. Execution of the agreement to sell dtd. 4/6/2010 in favour of the plaintiffs was denied. It was further denied that any earnest money was received by them. Dismissal of the suit was sought.