JASBIR KAUR Vs. SANTOSH RANI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jasbir Kaur plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal impugning the judgments and decrees dated 22.12.2010 and 09.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur and learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, respectively.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.07.1996 in regard to the plot/house measuring 130 square yards (5 kanal 12 marlas) allegedly executed by Mal Singh son of Gajjan Singh. As sum of Rs. 65,000/- was received as earnest money and the plaintiff was stated to be put in physical possession of the house. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, she could get the sale deed executed as and when desired on putting the vender to 20 days notice. She allegedly spent about Rs. 50,000/- on the renovation of the house and started residing there alongwith her family. Mal Singh died six months after the agreement. Thereupon which defendants No. 1 to 4 given up before the trial Court and not impleaded as party in this appeal threatened to dispossess her forcibly claiming to be legal heirs of Mal Singh. Legal notice dated 07.11.2000 was sent by the plaintiff through her counsel to defendants No. 2 to 5 (defendant No. 5 is also not impleaded as party in this appeal having been given up before the trial Court). Said notice was duly served upon defendants No. 2 to 4. It was returned as unclaimed qua defendant No. 5. Said defendants were asked vide this notice to come to the office of Sub Registrar Sangrur on 27.11.2000 for execution of sale deed on receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,000/- in terms of the agreement of sale dated 23.07.1996. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on the said date alongwith balance sale consideration alongwith other necessary expenses but the defendants failed to turn up. She alleged herself to have been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. Defendants being legal heirs, as alleged by them, were bound to perform their part of the agreement. When they did not come forward to execute the agreement rather threatened to alienate the house in dispute, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

(3.) Defendants No. 6 and 7 i.e. respondent No. 1 Santosh Rani and respondent No. 2 - Surinder Kaur in the present appeal were impleaded as party in compliance of the order of this Court. Said respondents claimed to be legal representatives of Mal Singh, being daughters of Mal Singh and Bhagwan Kaur @ Bhano, widow of Mal Singh who had been initially impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the suit.