SURMUKH SINGH Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by plaintiff-appellant-Surmukh Singh on 21.05.2011 seeking relief of specific performance of agreements dated 12.04.1994 and 31.05.1994 with consequential relief of declaration and injunction was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra. However, he was allowed relief of refund of Rs. 1.5 lac alongwith interest from April, 2011 from defendant no. 1.

(2.) In first appeal, order of the lower Court declining the relief of specific performance of agreement was maintained but the amount payable to appellant was enhanced from Rs. 1.5 lac to Rs. 3 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till final realization. Not satisfied, plaintiff-appellant has filed this second appeal.

(3.) Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that vide agreement dated 12.04.1994, defendant no. 1-Rajinder Singh agreed to sell land measuring 10 kanals being 200/3493 share out of land measuring 174 kanals 13 marlas, as fully described in the plaint, situated in village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and received Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. The date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 25.05.1994, on which date plaintiff reached office of SubRegistrar, Thanesar with balance sale consideration, stamp and registration charges and remained present there throughout the day but defendant no. 1 did not turn up. He got his presence marked by moving application before Sub-Registrar through an affidavit. On coming to know that plaintiff had got his presence marked, defendant no. 1 contacted plaintiff and offered lame excuses. He requested for balance payment with the undertaking to execute the sale deed as and when plaintiff desire with one month prior notice. He also undertook to deliver possession of the suit land to plaintiff on receiving balance sale consideration. Consequently, plaintiff paid Rs. 1 lac to defendant no. 1 on 31.05.1994 and took possession of the disputed land. A separate agreement dated 31.05.1994 was also executed in favour of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and did not execute the sale deed as per terms and conditions laid down in the agreement. He had taken loan from PLDB, Kurukshetra after mortgaging the suit land and was assuring plaintiff that he will get the mortgage redeemed and execute the sale deed. Plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was still ready and willing at the time of filing of the suit. He also remained in peaceful possession of the suit land from 31.05.1994 which was forcibly occupied by defendants no. 2 to 8 after April, 2011. On enquiry, plaintiff came to know that on the basis of sale deed dated 24.08.1999 mutation no. 256 dated 21.12.1999 qua suit land had been sanctioned in favour of defendants no. 2 to 8. The sale deed in favour of defendants no. 2 to 8 is false, fictitious and forged document created to defeat the lawful and legal right of plaintiff over the suit land. Defendant no. 1 was not competent to sell the suit land to defendant no. 2 to 8 as he had already sold and delivered possession of the same to plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 was requested to cancel the sale deed in favour of defendants no. 2 to 8 which he refused resulting in filing of the instant suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.04.1994 and 31.05.1994. In alternative, plaintiff sought decree of recovery of double the amount already paid by him to defendant no. 1.