JAGDISH LAL AHUJA Vs. JAGTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby his suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.02.1996 has been dismissed.

(2.) As per the pleadings, respondent No.1-Jagtar Singh claiming himself to be the owner of 7 Kanals of agricultural land situated in village Mankian, Tehsil and District Panchkula, agreed to sell the agricultural land measuring 5 Kanals 1 Marla in his name comprised in Khewat No.41, Khatauni No.55, Khasra No.19//23/2 (2-8), Khatauni No.56, Khasra No.8//14/3/2(2-0), Khewat No.43, Khatauni No.58, Khasra No.18//17/2 (0-13) and further agreed to sell 7 Kanals of land comprised in Khewat No.44, Khatauni No.59, Khasra No.14/3 (7- 0), H.B. No.233, situated in village Malkian, Tehsil and District Panchkula, in the name of his son namely Rupinder Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,04,700/-. The agreement to sell was executed on 07.02.1996 which was signed by respondent No.1 for himself and on behalf of his minor son-respondent No.2 on receipt of Rs.1,28,000/- vide Bank Draft No.635582 dated 07.02.1996 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Grain Market, Chandigarh; and he further received a sum of Rs.22,000/- in cash (total amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-) as earnest money. According to the appellant, respondent No.1 further agreed to get the permission to sell the land of respondent No.2 from the competent Court of law before the date fixed for execution of the sale deed. However, he neither took the permission as required, nor he got the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant despite several requests. On 06.02.1999, the appellant came to know that respondent No.1 was the owner of land measuring 5 Kanals 1 Marlas only in village Mankian and not of 7 Kanals as represented by him. He again requested respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed qua the agricultural land recorded in his name and also the land recorded in the name of respondent No.2 after reducing the sale consideration proportionately, but respondent No.1 refused to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the appellant served a legal notice upon the respondents asking them to perform their part of the agreement, but to no avail. The appellant was always ready and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was also ready with the balance sale consideration. Hence the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections stating that the agreement to sell in question stood cancelled on 10.01.1997 and the appellant himself was guilty of not performing the agreement. On merits, it was stated that respondent No.1 never represented to be the owner of 7 Kanals of land, as alleged. It was contended that respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell dated 07.02.1996 for land measuring 7 Kanals comprised in Khasra No.14//3 which was in the name of respondent No.2. The receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- as earnest money and date for execution of the sale deed fixed as 07.05.1996 was also admitted. It was further stated that respondent No.1 had applied for permission to sell the land of his minor son-respondent No.2 and the said permission was received only on 12.12.1996 when respondent No.2 had already become major and was competent to execute the sale deed as per terms of the agreement. It was further averred that respondent No.2 had bonafidely admitted the contents of the agreement to sell in question and accordingly, the respondents remained present on 10.01.1997 when the appellant got drafted the sale deed of land measuring 7 Kanals but the actual settled sale consideration was not shown in the sale deed, nor was the appellant ready to pay the same, and therefore, the respondents did not execute the sale deed and as per the terms of the agreement to sell the earnest money paid by the appellant to the respondents stood forfeited. It was further averred that the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement but the appellant failed to perform his part and therefore, the agreement to sell stood cancelled. Thus, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.