PARVEEN KUMARI Vs. MEGH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARVEEN Kumari -appellant/defendant has filed this regular second appeal against Megh Raj -respondent/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga, allowing the appeal filed by Megh Raj -plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.2.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been partly decreed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Parveen Kumari -defendant being absolute owner of the suit house agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 28.5.2004 for a sale consideration of ' Three Lacs. A sum of ' Two Lacs were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in the presence of marginal witnesses on 28.5.2004. The sale deed was agreed to be executed qua the house measuring 8 Marlas 2/4 Sarsai on 27.5.2005, but later on through separate endorsement, the date was mutually extended upto 27.11.2005. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. When the date was extended to 27.11.2005, husband of the defendant was duly present. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he got marked his presence before the Sub Registrar, but the defendant did not turn up. Again the plaintiff gave notice and called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, but the defendant did not turn up.

(3.) AFTER framing issues and both the parties led their evidence, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.2014 upheld the execution of the agreement to sell and also that the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but by holding that the suit property is not identifiable as Khasra numbers have not been given, decreed the suit of the plaintiff partly for alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 2 Lacs along with interest @ 9% per annum and future interest. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant asking for the relief of specific performance. The learned Additional District Judge, Moga, vide judgment and decree dated 6.12.2014 accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and set aside the findings of the learned lower Court by holding that the property has been duly described by boundaries and are totally in consonance with boundaries mentioned in Ex. P.1 and there is no need for giving Khasra numbers. It is also considered by the first appellate Court that there is no dispute in the written statement regarding identity of the property or title thereof.