SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. SUDESH PRASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal, by the defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15/16.07.2005. The Court of first Instance vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2014 dismissed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale, but allowed alternative relief holding the plaintiff entitled to get refund of amount of earnest money. On an appeal filed by plaintiff - Sudesh Prashar, learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.2015, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and passed a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale in her favour.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.

(3.) Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that the plaintiff had filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15/16.07.2005. As per the plaintiff, earnest money of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of execution of agreement towards the sale consideration and subsequently, payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was received by the defendant on 12.11.2005 against receipt and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was received the defendant through cheque dated 14.11.2005. As such, the total payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was received by the defendant against receipt. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed as per agreement of sale dated 15.7.2005. Legal notice was also got issued by the plaintiff on 19.1.2006. Stamp papers were purchased vide challan on 5.4.2006, but the defendant failed to turn up for execution of sale deed on 10.4.2006 and subsequently, registered legal notice was served upon the defendant on 18.4.2006. As per the plaintiff, there was certain outstanding amount on the suit land and the same was not cleared by the defendant. Hence, the necessity of suit.