SHALLU VIJ Vs. VIKRAMPAL BANSAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -appellant -Shallu Vij has directed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2014 passed by Shri Ajaib Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 passed by Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the present case in brief are that defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement to sell dated 17.07.2008 in favour of the plaintiffs whereby she agreed to sell her 1000sq. yards i.e., plot No. D -27 situated at Focal Point, Mandi Gobindgarh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 45,11,000/ - wherein she received Rs. 6lacs as earnest money. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 24.10.2008 subject to the condition of payment of the remaining sale consideration by the plaintiff. The entire expenses for the transfer were to be borne by the plaintiffs themselves. It was further agreed upon between the parties that in case of any encumbrance on the plot, the defendant No. 1 was bound to get the same cleared and in case of failure on the part of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had a right to receive the double of the earnest money and in case of any failure on the part of the plaintiff, the earnest money was to be forfeited by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant No. 1 assured her ownership and possession over the plot vide letter dated 9.3.1999 and only then the present plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with defendant No. 1. Plaintiff further averred that on being asked by the defendant No. 1, he paid Rs. 2lacs more to the defendant No. 1 vide cheque No. 488086 dated 21.07.2008 drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Mandi Gobindgarh. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing towards performance of his part of agreement by paying the remaining sale consideration for the execution of the sale deed in his favour but the defendant No. 1 put off the matter on one reason or the another. Even a day prior to the stipulated date for the sale deed i.e., on 23.10.2008, the plaintiff got served a telegram upon defendant No. 1 showing his readiness and willingness towards the execution of the sale deed, whereby he demanded NOC from the defendant No. 1 and asked her to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 37,11,000/ - but the defendant No. 1 did not come present. Aman Kumar Bansal plaintiff No. 2 even went to the office of Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh for the transfer of plot in his favour but the defendant No. 1 did not come present. Aman Kumar Bansal plaintiff No. 2 got his presence marked by way of an affidavit from the Notary Public. Hence this suit.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 appeared through counsel but later on proceeded against ex -parte.