GURDIP SINGH Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Gurmeet Singh had brought a suit against Gurdip Singh, Punjab Raj Federation Cooperative Society, Batala as well as Pritam Kaur seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 26/10/2009 entered into between plaintiff and defendant No.1 - Gurdip Singh with regard to sale of 2 kanals 13 marlas out of land measuring 52 kanals 18 marlas of land situated at village Mari Buchian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur after getting the suit land redeemed from the defendant No.2; in the alternative suing for recovery of Rs.3,78,500.00 as refund of earnest money as well as compensation and damages. In that suit the plaintiff had sought relief of permanent injunction also.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiff, Gurdip Singh - defendant No.1 had entered into a written agreement to sell dtd. 26/10/2009 with him for sale of 2 kanals 13 marlas of land at the rate of Rs.6,50,000.00 per acre, receiving a sum of Rs.1,89,000.00 as earnest money; the date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 22/2/2010; defendant No.1 had agreed to get the suit land redeemed from defendant No.2 and thereafter execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff on receipt of balance consideration amount. According to the plaintiff, he has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, however, defendant No.1 did not come forward to do his part; the plaintiff had gone to the office of SubRegistrar, Shri Hargobindpur on 24/2/2010 for the purpose of getting the sale deed executed and registered in his favour, however the defendant did not come present with the result the transaction of sale could not be completed. According to the plaintiff on 22/2/2010, the date fixed for execution of sale deed as well as 23/2/2010, office of Sub-Registrar, Shri Hargobindpur was not functioning, therefore, he had gone there on the next working day i.e. 24/2/2010. As per the version of the plaintiff while he had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar, Shri Hargobindpur on 24/2/2010, he was carrying with him the balance payment and money to meet necessary expenses for execution of the sale deed, however, defendant No.1 had not appeared; the plaintiff got his presence marked by way of attestation of affidavit from Executive Magistrate, Shri Hargobindpur.

(3.) As the version of the plaintiff goes defendant No.3 Smt.Pritam Kaur had been alleging that Gurdip Singh - defendant No.1 had sold the land in dispute to her. According to the plaintiff such sale, if any, is illegal, null and void ineffective qua rights of the plaintiff because defendant No.3 was fully aware of agreement to sell entered into between Gurdip Singh - defendant and plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by such conduct of defendant No.1, the plaintiff had approached the Court by way of filing suit for grant of specific performance etc.