NARINDER KUMAR Vs. BALRAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is appellant/defendant's (hereinafter referred to as the -defendant-) second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are, a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dtd. 24/2/2011 for the remaining half share in the suit property/residential house, was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the -plaintiffs-). The agreement to sell was voluntarily executed by the appellant/defendant along with his brother in favour of the plaintiffs on receiving earnest money of '7 lakh. The target date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 30/11/2011. On that date, due to inter se dispute between the two brothers/executants, the sale deed could not be executed. Vikas Kumar/defendant's brother accepted balance sale consideration of '6 lakh from the plaintiffs on 13/1/2012, which was endorsed by him at the reverse of the agreement to sell in the presence of witness Deepak Kumar. The plaintiffs served a legal notice dtd. 28/3/2012 to both the brothers calling upon them to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell, giving them a week's time to do so. Both the brothers did not execute the sale deed. Presence of the plaintiffs was got marked before the Sub-registrar by way of an affidavit of presence dtd. 9/4/2012. Thereafter, the plaintiffs met both the brothers and agreed to perform their part of the contract. On 11/4/2012, a sum of '3 lakh was paid to Vikas Kumar/defendant's brother vide cheque bearing No.22690. A receipt to that effect was issued on the reverse of the agreement to the plaintiffs by him. On 18/4/2012, only the defendant's brother, Vikas Kumar, executed sale deed of his half share in the suit property and got it registered in part performance of the agreement to sell executed in favour of the plaintiffs by both the brothers. The defendant, however, refused to do so leading to the institution of suit in question.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit pleading that the plaintiffs were bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dtd. 24/2/2011, in terms whereof date for registration of sale deed was fixed as 30/11/2011. But the plaintiffs did not turn up along with balance sale consideration on that date. On their failure to do so, the earnest money would stand forfeited.