RAM CHANDER Vs. BHOOP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Chander-appellant has preferred this second appeal against judgment dated 15.05.1986 vide which suit of the plaintiffs was decreed against the defendant-appellant and the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.06.1988. The facts necessary for the disposal of present appeal are that Bhoop Singh and others filed a suit for specific performance, inter alia, alleging that they entered into a contract with the appellant-defendant for purchase of land in question for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- on 25.02.1981. It was agreed at that time that Bhoop Singh and Tula Ram shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed in their favour on payment of sale consideration and out of total sale price, a sum of Rs. 23,765/- were paid to the defendant-appellant at the time of execution of the agreement to sell while the remaining of Rs. 12,235/- were agreed to be paid before the execution of the sale deed. As the defendant-appellant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents despite payment of the remaining sale consideration and despite asking him to do so time and again, the plaintiffs-respondents filed the present suit.

(2.) The appellant-defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and took the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit and took the stand that defendant was paid only an amount of Rs. 13,665/- and the remaining sale consideration has not been paid so far; the agreement in question is based on fraud and misrepresentation and is without jurisdiction; Rs. 12,235/- was to be deposited in the Punjab National Bank by the plaintiffs-respondents as per the agreement, but the same was not deposited by them; the plaintiffs-respondents have not served any notice regarding their willingness to get the sale deed executed and as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Plaintiffs-respondents filed replication reiterating the averments pleaded by them in their plaint and controverting the assertions taken by the appellant-defendant in his written statement.