MEGH RAJ Vs. SUBHASH RANI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Megh Raj-plaintiff who was partly successful in the trial Court but has been completely non-suited by the lower appellate Court has filed this second appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against defendant Baljinder Singh @ Barjinder Singh (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal representatives) alleging that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas to the plaintiff for Rs. 32,237/- (Rupees thirty two thousand two hundred thirty seven) and received Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) as earnest money and executed agreement dated 03.07.1996. Sale deed was to be executed within fifteen days of sanction of mutation of inheritance of defendant's father in favour of defendant and other legal heirs. However, he kept on putting off the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. Meanwhile wife of defendant filed suit for maintenance against him along with permanent injunction. In that suit, defendant initially admitted claim of the present plaintiff but later on, in connivance with his wife, refused to execute the sale deed. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.05.2000. After withdrawal of said suit, the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed but he failed to do so. On approaching the Patwari on 12.07.2000, the plaintiff learnt that inheritance mutation of defendant's father had already been sanctioned in favour of defendant and other legal heirs. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant committed breach thereof. Accordingly plaintiff sought possession of the suit land by specific performance of the aforesaid agreement and also claimed permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement denied the plaint averments. Execution of the impugned agreement was denied. Receipt of earnest money was also denied. Agreement was alleged to be result of fraud. The agreement was also alleged to be vague as no khasra number and khewat number of the land had been mentioned in it. It was also pleaded that suit is barred by limitation. Various other pleas were also raised.