ISHAR DASS Vs. KANWAR BHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ishar Dass appellant -defendant No. 3 has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1986 by which the appeal filed by Kanwar Bhan plaintiff -respondent was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1983 passed by the trial Judge was set aside.

(2.) The plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for seeking a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 26.11.1979, against the defendants.

(3.) The case of plaintiff is that a residential plot, as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, was in the ownership of Lajwanti, defendant No. 2, and Dharam Pal Madan, defendant No. 1 being her Special Attorney, vide duly registered Power of Attorney dated 19.10.1979, executed an agreement dated 26.11.1979 to sell the said plot to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 14000/ -; that defendant No. 1 had received Rs. 15000/ - on 30.9.1979 which was treated as earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement dated 26.11.1979; that the execution and registration of the sale deed was to be completed by 25.4.1980 after receiving the balance sale price from the plaintiff and the stamp and registration charges were to be borne by the plaintiff; that in case of default on the part of the plaintiff to get the sale -deed executed and registered by 25.4.1980, his earnest money was to be forfeited and the agreement deemed to have been cancelled; that however, in case of default on the part of defendant No. 1 to get the sale deed completed, the plaintiff was entitled to get the agreement, in question, specifically enforced through court or to claim from defendant No. 1 a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as liquidated damages; that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; that it is only the defendants who are avoiding was granted against the defendants. It is thus canvassed by the plaintiff that the defendants were not at all ready and willing to perform their part of the contract; that defendant No. 1, in order to create false evidence, also got issued a notice to the plaintiff on 26.5.1980, which was received by the plaintiff on 28.4.1980 after institution of the suit for injunction; and that defendant No. 1 did not execute and get registered a proper sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It is also set up by the plaintiff that compensation of money will not be adequate relief for the breach of the agreement.