LAWS(P&H)-2002-7-44

BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

Decided On July 29, 2002
BAKHTAWAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
GURDIAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he dismissed his appeal and up-held the judgement and decree dated 8.10.1996 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala, vide which the suit of the respondent (plaintiff) for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell was decreed with costs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the appellant (defendant) was the owner of the suit land measuring 13 kanals 1 marla situated in the revenue estate of Village Gagra, Tehsil Samrala, as detailed in Para No. 1 of the plaint. He agreed to sell it to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per Killa vide agreement dated 20.11.1991 and received Rs. 50,000/- in cash as earnest money. He promised to execute the sale deed by 15.12.1992. It was agreed that all the sale expenses would be borne by the respondent and if the appellant committed breach of the agreement, then the respondent would have the option to get the sale deed executed by way of specific performance of the agreement or to recover double the amount of the earnest money. It was further agreed that in case the respondent committed default in getting the sale deed registered, then his earnest money shall stand forfeited. It was also averred that respondent had been requesting the appellant to execute and get the sale deed registered but the appellant had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately the respondent went to the office of Sub Registrar on 15.12.1992 with balance consideration and expenses for execution of the sale deed and appeared before the Sub Registrar, Samrala, but the appellant failed to turn up and he got himself marked present. It was next averred that the respondent had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the appellant had committed default. With these allegations, suit for specific performance or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. one lac i.e. double the amount of earnest money along with interest at the rate of 1% per mensum with effect from 20.12.1991 till the realisation of the amount was filed.

(3.) THE parties adduced their evidence. After hearing counsel for the parties, vide judgement dated 8.10.1996, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala, decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell with costs and directed the appellant to get the sale deed executed and registered within two months from the date of decree and the respondent was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month by holding under Issue No. 1 that the appellant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.11.1991, Ex. P1 with the respondent after receiving Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that the respondent had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Under Issue No. 3, it was held that the agreement to sell was a perfectly legal and valid document and was enforceable.