VIDHYA DEVI Vs. MAHINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by Vidhya Devi against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby the relief seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.01.2006 was declined and the alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 2 lacs with interest @ 6% per annum, was allowed. The judgment passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat was upheld by the District Judge, Panipat.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that defendant vide agreement dated 11.02.2006 agreed to sell his house fully described with letters ABCD in the site plan comprised in khasra No.36/5/2(6-4) for a sum of Rs. 7 lac and received Rs. 1 lac as earnest money. The date for execution and registration of the sale deed on payment of balance sale consideration was fixed as 10.05.2006. Plaintiff averred that she paid additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- each on 12.01.2006 and 20.01.2006 to the defendant towards earnest money vide receipts. She has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 10.05.2006 along with balance sale consideration and other expenses, where defendant failed to appear. A notice was also issued to the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed but of no avail.

(3.) Defendant, in his written statement, admitted the agreement but pleaded that this agreement was entered with husband of plaintiff regarding the house situated in Adarsh Nagar, Jayrasi Road, Samalkha. He also admitted the receipt of Rs. 1 lac as earnest money on 11.01.2006 and Rs. 50,000/- each on 12.01.2006 and 20.01.2006 from husband of plaintiff. Under a compromise dated 10\9.06.2006, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended up to 18.12.2006 and the price of the suit property was enhanced by Rs. 35,000/-. Husband of the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract. On 18.12.2006, defendant went to the office of Sub Registrar, where plaintiff or her husband failed to appear. All other averments of the plaintiff were contested, controverted and denied.