CHAMKAUR SINGH Vs. JAGIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 23.03.2015 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No. 1517 of 2011 (O&M)

(2.) BY consent, the matter is taken on board for final disposal.

(3.) THIS is defendant's second appeal in a suit for possession by way of specific performance based on an agreement dated June 14, 2000 to sell agricultural land measuring 48 K 12 M. The date fixed for execution of sale deed was August 03, 2000. While the plaintiffs pressed for execution and were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the defendant backed out of the deal which led to filing of the suit. After backing out of the deal defendant -1 vendor who entered into a sale transaction of suit property with defendants 2 to 8 and got a sale deed registered in the latter's favour on August 07, 2000 of the same property. This sale deed was challenged in the suit in addition claiming specific performance of contract. It was prayed that the sale deed be declared illegal and null and void and not pleading any title on the vendees. These defendants are bound to join defendant -1 to get the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiffs in terms of the sale agreement dated June 14, 2000. The trial court framed five issues including relief. Parties went to trial and led their evidence both oral and documentary to prove the agreement to sale. The presence of the plaintiffs was duly marked in the office of the Sub Registrar by scribing affidavit which was attested by the Executive Magistrate but the defendant -1 failed to show up or get his presence marked. Defendant -1 set up a story that he was present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kalanaur on the target date August 03, 2000 and in support he produced Ex. PW -8/B relevant extract from the register maintained by the office when an entry has been made at 4.30 PM, however, in the remaining entries on the register time of entry is not recorded which creates doubt regarding its genuineness. To the contrary, the entry of the plaintiffs on the same day is without recording of time. The court disbelived the correctness of the entry. The only issue that was hotly debated was to readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract. To prove this, plaintiffs examined three witnesses that the sale agreement was valid. They proved that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had sufficient money to pay the balance sale consideration.