GURJIT SINGH Vs. TARSEN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed by plaintiff-Tarsem Singh for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 3.3.2008 was dismissed by the trial Court. In the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the District Judge, Mansa, vide judgment dated 3.6.2011 has accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and has accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.3.2008. The defendant-appellants are in second appeal before this Court impugning the judgment dated 3.6.2011 passed by the first Appellate Court. Briefly noticed, the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance against the defendants in terms of pleading that he had entered an agreement to sell dated 3.3.2008. It was pleaded that the defendants were owners in possession of l/3rd share of land measuring 01 kanal 01 marla situated within the revenue limits of village Jhunir. Accordingly, the agreement to sell dated 3.3.2008 in favour of the plaintiff was for the sale of their l/3rd share i. e. 07 marla for a total sale-consideration of Rs. 8,60,000/- and a sum of Rs. 3 lacs had been paid towards earnest money. The last date for execution of the sale-deed was stipulated to be 30th April, 2008. The plaintiff pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract as the defendants had been threatening to alienate the suit land to some other person, he had filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. Defendant No. 3-Gurcharan Singh had duly executed registered sale-deed regarding his share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 5.5.2008 and as such, he had performed his part of the contract in pursuance to the agreement to sell dated 3.3.2008. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 30.4.2008, he had come present in the office of Sub registrar, Jhunir along with balance sale-consideration as also other expenses for the execution of the registered sale-deed but it were defendants No. 1 and 2 who had not appeared. The plaintiff pleaded that the possession of the suit land had already been delivered to him, but since defendants No. 1 and 2 were not performing their part of contract and were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly so as to alienate the suit land, hence, the suit.

(2.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit and admitted the factum of entering into the agreement to sell. It was denied that the possession of the suit land had been delivered to the plaintiff. The defendants stated that they had been ready and willing to perform their part of contract in terms of having been present before the competent authority on 30.4.2008, but it was the plaintiff who had failed to perform his part of contract. Defendants No. 1 and 2 further set up a plea that upon having an expectation to get the balance sale-consideration from the plaintiff, they had agreed to purchase a Combine from Sher Singh on 12.3.2008 by executing an agreement in regard thereto and had made a payment of Rs. 2,14,000/- as earnest money. They stated that it had been agreed to between them and Sher Singh that the possession of the Combine would be handed over on 2.5.2008 upon receiving the balance sale-consideration amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. On account of non-performance of the part of contract by the plaintiff in relation to the agreement to sell dated 3.3.2008, the earnest money that had been paid by defendants No. 1 and 2 to Sher Singh for the purchase of combine was forfeited. The defendants, as such, had been put to a loss on account of the conduct of the plaintiff and as such, the earnest money paid by the plaintiff also stood forfeited.

(3.) The parties to the suit went to trial on the following issues framed by the trial Court: