NEERAJ SHARMA Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract in respect of total land measuring 45 kanal 7 marlas purchased from different co -owners in different khasra numbers in Village Bosti, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad as fully described in the plaint.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the short story told is that the defendant was sole owner in possession of suit land. He struck a bargain with the plaintiffs to sell his land for Rs.5.25 lacs per acre. Accordingly, parties executed an agreement to sell on April 10, 2006. Out of the total sale consideration an amount of Rs.5 lacs was paid in cash whereas Rs.1 lac was paid by two cheques dated April 11, 2006 drawn on a Nationalized Bank. The date of execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as November 30, 2006. There was a stipulation that in case, there was failure to execute the sale deed, plaintiffs would have a right to get sale deed executed. Besides, the defendant would pay double the amount of earnest money in such event. In case, plaintiffs fail to perform their part of the contract, earnest money would stand forfeited.

(3.) THE case set up was that a day before the date fixed for registration of the sale deed, the defendant requested plaintiffs on telephone that due to some family problem he would not be able to reach the Sub Registrar office. It is the say of the plaintiffs that the request was accepted in telephone conversation. Despite accepting the postponement of the date, the plaintiffs yet remained present in Tehsil compound, Tohana ready with the remaining sale consideration and towards expenses of stamp duty and registration fee. They spent the whole day on Tehsil Ccmplex but the defendant failed to turn up. The defendant backed out of the deal and was contacted many a time to come forward for execution of sale deed, but to no avail. Ultimately, plaintiffs served legal notice dated February 27, 2007 through their counsel calling upon defendant to execute the sale deed up to March 13, 2007. Reply was avoided and the date elapsed. It is said that plaintiff No.4 Anant Ram got an affidavit typed and approached the Sub Registrar, Tohana for attestation of the affidavit for the purpose of marking his presence but, the officer refused to oblige on the ground that they do not attest affidavits on the basis of notice issued by counsel. Therefore, the affidavit was got atttested by Notary Public Tohana instead. Then a fresh notice through counsel was served by registered post dated May 16, 2007 calling upon defendant to execute sale deed which met with no response.