VIKAS TUSHE Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2010 passed by Sh. Subhas Mehla, Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant defendant No.2 against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.2009 passed by Shri Najar Singh Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sonepat, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance against the defendants, on the allegations that defendant No.1 agreed to sell agricultural land measuring 23 kanal 11 marlas out of the land comprised in Khewat No. 46/54, total measuring 26 kanal 4 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Rathdhana, Tehsil and District Sonepat, vide agreement to sell dated 10.9.2004 for a sum of Rs. 41lacs including cost of tube well and with all rights appurtenant thereto. It is pleaded that at the time of execution of agreement defendant No.1 received an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 in cash and a cheque dated 1.9.2004 for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000.00 and defendant No.1 encashed the cheque also. Defendant No.1 again requested the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 4,50,000.00. As such plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000.00 in cash and a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000.00 which was also encashed. A receipt dated 5.10.2004 was also executed in this regard. In this manner, defendant No. 1 has received an amount of Rs. 10,50,000.00 as earnest money and remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed i.e. on or before 10.5.2005. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Sonepat on 10.5.2005 but defendant No.1 has not turned up for execution and registration of the sale deed. Plaintiff served legal notice upon defendant No.1 calling him to execute and register the sale deed but despite that defendant No.1 did not come forward for execution and registration of sale deed on 2.6.2005. Plaintiff remained present alongwith balance consideration on 2.6.2005.

(3.) It is alleged that during the existence of agreement to sell defendant No. 1 alienated the land in favour of defendant No.2 on 29.3.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 16,19,500.00. It is further alleged that sale deed dated 29.3.2005 is null and void and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Further prayer has been made for decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 10.9.2004.