DALIP KUMAR Vs. KUSHAL KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff of the suit has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against judgment & decree dtd. 15/1/2018 passed by the first Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, affirming the judgment & decree dtd. 30/8/2016 of the trial Court, whereby suit of the appellant-plaintiff seeking decree for specific performance in respect of property in dispute, was dismissed. Plaintiff is, thus, against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

(2.) It is not in dispute that vide an agreement dtd. 31/10/2008 defendant (respondent herein) agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff (appellant herein) for consideration of Rs.3,50,000.00. An amount of Rs.50,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to defendant as earnest money. Balance sale consideration was to be paid on or before 27/1/2009, which was agreed to be the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed. Plaintiff pleaded his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and alleged that defendant put off the matter on one or the other pretext. Plaintiff also pleaded that he had appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar on 27/1/2009 and then on 7/11/2011 after serving a legal notice dtd. 21/10/2011 but defendant did not turn up.

(3.) Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that defendant was required to get the mutation sanctioned in respect of the suit property in the revenue record and only thereafter the sale deed was to be executed. Learned counsel contends that since the title to the suit property was not clear, therefore sale deed could not be got executed.