MANGAL DASS BHATTI Vs. INDER SINGH KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 23/9/2011 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the defendant-respondent was accepted and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed for recovery of Rs.2.00 lacs along with future interest @ 6% from date of the decree till realization.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff-appellant qua agreement to integrity of this sell dtd. 21/12/2001 alleged to have been executed by the defendant- respondent in favour of the plaintiff-appellant in respect of land measuring 75 kanals 18 marlas bearing Khewat No.250, Khatuni No.300, Khasra Nos.32//6(6-12), 32//13/3(3-7), 32//7/1(1-13), 32//7/2(3-15), 32//14(8-0), 32//15/1(1-2), 32//17(8-12), 32//18(8-0), 32//23(7-11), 32//24(7-11), 32//25/3(3-10), 32//27(0-5), Khatuni No.345, Khasra Nos.32//15/2(6-2), 32//16(7-4) and 32//25/1(0-8), Khewat No.573, Khatuani No.715, Khasra No.32//25/2(3-0) situated in Village Naharpur, HB No.150, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. It was averred in the plaint that the agreement to sell dtd. 21/12/2001 was an agreement-cum-receipt of earnest money which was executed by the defendant-respondent in favour of the plaintiff- appellant in the presence of witnesses and the sale deed was to be executed after harvesting Rabi 2002 crop. However, the defendant-respondent, inspite of harvesting Rabi 2002 crop, did not intimate the plaintiff-appellant about it. In February 2003, May 2003, September 2003 and December 2003 the plaintiff-appellant alongwith Adrish son of Dost Mohd. approached the defendant-respondent for execution and registration of the sale deed but the defendant-respondent put the plaintiff-appellant off on one pretext or the other whereas the plaintiff-appellant had always been ready to perform his part of the contract on payment of the balance sale consideration. It was further averred that in May 2004 and June 2004, Adrish on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant had approached the defendant-respondent for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, however, the defendant- respondent did not come forward. It was further averred that on 25/10/2004 the plaintiff-appellant alongwith Adrish approached the defendant- integrity of this respondent for execution and registration of the sale deed in terms of the agreement but the defendant-respondent put the matter off on one pretext or other. In November 2004 the plaintiff-appellant alongwith Adrish and Surinder Chhabra approached the defendant-respondent for getting the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant in terms of the agreement. The defendant-respondent admitted to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant but later on he did not execute the sale deed. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant through his counsel sent a registered notice dtd. 6/12/2004 to the defendant-respondent requiring him to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant within seven days. Hence, the present suit for specific performance was filed. On notice the defendant-respondent appeared and filed his written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, jurisdiction, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action. On merits it was denied that the defendant- respondent had ever entered into an agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant regarding the suit land nor had he received any amount as earnest money. It was stated that the plaintiff-appellant was a property dealer and he played fraud with people just to grab their property. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :