MUKESH & ORS Vs. SAMUNDER SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants(vendors) are in second appeal against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance filed by respondent no.1/plaintiff was partly decreed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Divn.), Bahadurgarh vide its judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide its judgment and decree dated 18.11.2010.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that defendants Ram Narain etc were the owner of the property as detailed in the plaint who had executed an agreement to sell dated 25.02.2005 in favour of plaintiff Samunder Singh Mann(respondent no.1). The details of the conditions that were mentioned in the agreement to sell were also narrated in the plaint. It was averred by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 that subsequently, after execution of the agreement to sell, the defendants tried to wriggle out of the contract and thus, he was constrained to issue notices dated 30.08.2005 and 16.09.2005 to the defendants requiring them to execute the sale deed as per the agreement to sell. However, defendants refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and thus, suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed.

(3.) Upon notice, written statement was filed by the defendants, whereby it was stated that defendant nos.1 to 6 had executed agreement to sell dated 25.02.2005 qua the suit land. However, it was stated that defendant nos.7 & 8 had not executed the agreement to sell. It was also averred that defendant nos.1 to 6 were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, however, it was plaintiff who was not ready and willing. It was also stated by the defendants that the plaintiff had forged a receipt showing payment of Rs.6 lacs in cash to them and thus, they got encashed three cheques given by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 and returned the said amount to the plaintiff in cash. Remaining averments were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.