BANWARI LAL Vs. SUNDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the Regular Second Appeal is to the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated 13-2- 1982. whereby an appeal filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Karnal was dismissed, as being not maintainable.

(2.) The appellant herein filed a suit, for possession of agricultural land, measuring 24 Kanals. Marias by way of a specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 22-11-1976. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 10,000/-. Rs. 3000/- was alleged to have been paid to the respondent on 22-11-1976 as earnest money. The balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 22-2-1977, The respondent instead of executing a sale deed executed a second agreement dated 23-2-1977 and received Rs. 2400/- in cash. The respondent, admitted, executing the agreement dated 22-11 -1976 and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 27-3-1977. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 1600/- was to be received by the respondent before the Sub Registrar. It was further alleged that the respondent, once again, failed to execute the sale deed and a third agreement dated 7-11-1977 was executed, pursuant whereto a sum of Rs. 1600/- was paid to the respondent. The sale deed was now to be executed on 7-11-1978. On 7-11-1978, though the appellant was present before the Sub-Registrar, the respondent failed to appear, compelling the appellant to serve a legal notice, requiring the respondent to execute the sale deed. As the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, the appellant filed the present suit.

(3.) In opposition to the averments in the plaint, the respondent, did not deny the execution of the first agreement to sell but pleaded that the appellant had not come present to get the sale deed executed before the Sub-Registrar. The second agreement to sell was not denied. As regards the third agreement to sell, it was pleaded that it was an agreement to mortgage. It was further pleaded that as the appellant was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, he had no right to seek specific performance.