SATISH KUMAR Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs who were successful in the trial Court but have been non-suited by the lower appellate Court have filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Case of the plaintiffs is that defendant-respondent Ram Singh vide agreement dated 18.06.1996 agreed to sell the suit land measuring 52 bighas 4 biswas to plaintiff No.1 @ Rs. 5,40,000/-(Rupees five lacs forty thousand) per acre comprising of 4 bighas. However, in the agreement, area of khasra No. 949/855 was wrongly mentioned as 2 bighas 4 biswas although its actual area, which is also in possession of the defendant, is 2 bighas 10 biswas and thus in the agreement, total area of the suit land was mentioned to be 51 bighas 18 biswas instead of 52 bighas 4 biswas. At the time of agreement, the defendant received Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs) as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.09.1996. Defendant was to obtain income-tax clearance certificate. Plaintiff No.1 assigned his rights under the agreement to plaintiff No.2 vide writing dated 25.06.1996. Accordingly plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement, but if the same is not allowed, then plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to the said relief. Plaintiffs alleged that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract but the defendant committed breach thereof. Accordingly the plaintiffs sought relief of possession of the suit land by specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative, relief of recovery of Rs. 70,46,960/- (Rupees Seventy lacs forty six thousand nine hundred sixty).

(3.) The defendant admitted that he had agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff No. 1 but the agreed rate was Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs) per 4 bighas i.e. per acre and not Rs.5,40,000/- (Rupees five lacs forty thousand) per acre. The defendant also denied receipt of earnest money. The defendant alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but plaintiffs themselves committed breach thereof. The defendant also alleged that he had also obtained income-tax clearance certificate. Various other pleas were also raised.