MOLAR RAM Vs. KAHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. one filed by plaintiff -Molar Ram (RSA No. 2634 of 1988) and the other by defendant -Kahan Singh (RSA No. 2674 of 1988), against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1988, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, partly allowing the appeal of plaintiff -Molar Ram. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from RSA No. 2634 of 1988.

(2.) Brief facts, are that respondent -defendant -Kahan Singh agreed to sell two shops bearing Municipal Nos. 401 -400/11 -M.C.K. (old) along with backside courtyard situated at Railway Road, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') allotted to him at reserved price by the State Government on depositing a sum of Rs. 2453/ - as 1/4th of the auction money on 29.10.1971, to the appellant -plaintiff -Molar Ram, vide agreement to sell dated 05.02.1972 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/ - and received Rs. 4000/ - as earnest money. The relevant salient features of the aforesaid agreement were that (i) the respondent -defendant would collect Rs. 8000/ - from the appellant -plaintiff as part of the sale consideration on receipt of allotment/confirmation letter from the Haryana Government for depositing the same with Haryana Government; (ii) the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 8000/ - shall be paid by the appellant -plaintiff to the respondent -defendant at the time of attestation and registration of sale deed; (iii) the respondent -defendant would execute and register the sale deed in favour of appellant -plaintiff or his nominee(s) within a period of seven days from the receipt of sale certificate by him from the State Government; (iv) the respondent -defendant would inform the appellant -plaintiff about receipt of sale certificate from the State Government qua the suit property; (v) in case, the respondent -defendant failed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of appellant -plaintiff after receipt of sale certificate in that eventuality, the appellant -plaintiff would be at liberty either to get the agreement specifically enforced through Court or to recover two times the earnest money as consolidated damages from the respondent -defendant; (vi) in case the appellant -plaintiff fail to get the sale deed executed and registered, in that eventuality, his earnest money would he forfeited; (vii) the actual possession of one shop bearing No. 401/11 -MCK along with backside courtyard shall be delivered by respondent -defendant to appellant -plaintiff at the time of registration of sale deed or by 12.04.1972.

(3.) The appellant -plaintiff came to know that though the respondent -defendant had received the sale certificate from the State Government in his favour, but did not convey this fact to him in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement in question. He was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Consequently, he served a legal registered notice dated 12.08.1979 upon respondent -defendant calling upon him to execute and register the sale deed in terms of aforesaid agreement in his favour or his nominee(s), after accepting the balance sale price within a period of 07 days after the receipt of notice, which was received by him on 22.08.1979, but he (defendant) failed to comply with the same. Hence, the appellant -plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance to direct the respondent -defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour, after accepting the balance sale consideration and also to do all other acts which were necessary for the due completion of contract including delivery of possession.