JAWALA DASS Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have preferred this second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below decreeing the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7th March, 1990. The suit has been decreed with respect to land measuring 32K out of the total land measuring 48 Kanals. From the land holdings of 48K, 16 were owned by defendant No.1, father of defendants No.2 to 5. 16K each was owned by Prem Sagar -defendant No.2 and defendants No.3 to 5 -Ramesh Chander, Jagmohan and Ravinder Kumar. The suit has been decreed. Jawala Dassdefendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell Ex.P1 with plaintiff Lalji on his own behalf as well as on behalf of his sons. The total sale consideration for the agricultural land was agreed at Rs. 39,000/ - per acre. The total amount came to be Rs. 2,34,000/ - of which Rs. 30,000/ - was paid in advance as earnest money. The contracted date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed for 23rd May, 1990. It was extended on the request of Jawala Dass and Prem Sagar, father and one of his sons for th June, 1990. On the appointed date, Lalji awaited the defendants in the office of the Sub -Registrar but they did not turn up. Lalji served a legal notice on the defendants on 15th July, 1990 to come forward. The report of the postman is that the defendants were not found. Again on 16th August, 1990, a reminder legal notice was served, on which, the report says that there was refusal to accept the letter. Disputes arose and Lalji brought a suit in the civil court at Rohtak Sessions Division on 16 th August, 1991 for possession by way of specific performance of contract of sale.

(2.) THE suit was contested by all the defendants. They denied execution of the agreement to sell. They called it a forged and bogus document. A other plea taken was that the plaintiff was never willing and ready to perform his part of the contract and thus, the suit is not maintainable. The execution of the agreement to sell Ex.P1 and receipt for extension of time Ex.P2 have been duly proved by PW1 -Inder Singh [attesting witness], PW4 -Bhagwan Dass [attesting witness] and PW10 [plaintiff himself]. The signatures of the parties have also been duly proved by PW5 -R.P.Singh, Hand Writing and Fingers Print Expert vide his report Ex.PW5/1. The readiness and willingness on the part of Lalji has been duly proved by the Clerk of Sub -Registrar office that his presence was marked on the agreed contract date. The readiness and willingness of Lalji has also been proved by the Accountant produced from the State Bank of India as well as counterpart from the Haryana Keshtriya Gramin Bank who appeared as PW8 and PW9 respectively to prove the statement of account of Lalji Ex.P5 and P6 depicting that there were sufficient amounts in the account of the plaintiff for meeting the expenses for execution and registration of the sale deed. The warning notices served by Lalji on the defendants have been proved by PW11 Rajinder Singh, a Clerk of the counsel. Lalji stepped into the witness box as PW10 in support of the pleadings in the plaint.

(3.) IN defence, Jawala Dass stepped into the witness box as DW1. He examined DW2 Haveli Ram, record -keeper of Sessions Court, Rohtak. The record relied upon was judicial record regarding a criminal complaint filed under Section 420 IPC by the defendants against Lalji for committing fraud on them. This was in complaint case No.406 of 1990. The complaint was dismissed by JMIC, Rohtak on 23rd February, 1991. The defendants had committed no fraud on Lalji. Defendants No.2 to 5 did not step into the witness box to deny the averments of the plaintiff in his plaint. The suit was partially decreed for 32 Kanals of land vide judgment and decree dated 28th November, 1996.