BALDEV SINGH Vs. SWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit for possession by specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 4/1/2016 with regard to land measuring 10 kanal 00 marla situated in village Jaspal, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') or in the alternative for recovery of double the amount of earnest money paid to the appellant/defendant by the respondent/plaintiff as damages as agreed, along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of execution of agreement to sell, was filed by the respondent/plaintiff with a further prayer to restrain the appellant/defendant from further selling, alienating, transferring, mortgaging or from creating any type of charge over the suit land. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 28/11/2018. The appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide order dtd. 28/4/2022. The defendant is now before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(3.) The pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus. The defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with the plaintiff on 4/1/2016. A sum of Rs.14,96,000.00 out of the total sale consideration of Rs.18.00 lakhs agreed upon between the parties was paid to the defendant as earnest money by the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 4/1/2017. On the date fixed, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar with the balance sale consideration and waited for the defendant, however, since the latter failed to turn up, the plaintiff got his presence marked in the office of the Sub Registrar. The plaintiff claimed that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, however, the defendant had failed to perform his part of the contract as he had failed to show up in the office of Sub Registrar. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant had refused to reply to the legal notice sent by him and had instead threatened to alienate the suit property. Having been left with no other choice, the plaintiff instituted the suit in question.