TEK CHAND Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the District Courts, whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dtd. 8/1/2004, has been partly decreed by both the District Courts for recovery of Rs.1,08,900.00 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum thereupon.

(2.) It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that defendants are the owners in possession of the suit property. Vide Agreement to Sell dtd. 8/1/2004, defendants No.1 and 2 had agreed to sell the plot in question to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,36,468.00. The amount of Rs.90,000.00 paid in cash was received by defendants No.1 and 2 by way of earnest money. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 3/3/2004. It is submitted that the appellant had duly proved on record the said Agreement to Sell. It is submitted that defendant had obtained permission from HUDA for transfer of plot in the name of defendants, in favour of nominee of the plaintiff, namely, Atul Jain vide Permission Letter dtd. 3/2/2004 Ex.PW1/3. Moreover, appellant had also proved his presence before the HUDA office and before the learned Executive Magistrate/Sub Registrar Gurgaon by way of his Affidavits dtd. 27/2/2004 and 3/3/2004. However, defendants No.1 and 2 had become dishonest and had not performed their part of contract. Plaintiff had served legal notice dtd. 30/8/2005 upon the defendants but to no avail. It is contended that in view of above said facts, no ground whatsoever is made out as to why suit of the plaintiff was not decreed for specific performance.

(3.) It is accordingly prayed that present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts be set aside.