KIRPAL KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. RITESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the defendants (herein after referred as 'defendants') challenging the decree passed by the learned Appellate Court for granting the relief of specific performance in favour of the respondents (herein after referred as 'plaintiffs'), by modifying decree passed by the trial Court, whereby only the relief of return of earnest money, with interest, was granted. The plaintiffs in the present case are the legal representatives of the vendee and the defendants in the case are legal representatives of the vendor, since both, the vendor and vendee, had expired before filing of the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.02.2004, along with decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the land in question. It was pleaded in the plaint that the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 4 merely, Gurmeet Singh, was recorded as owner in possession of land measuring 8 kanals situated in Village Nilokheri, Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal, described in the plaint. The said Gurmeet Singh executed an agreement to sell in favour of Jai Parkash, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and the performa defendants No. 5 to 7, for a sale consideration of Rs. 4.00 Lacs. A sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs was paid as earnest money to Gurmeet Singh. The target date for execution of the sale deed in favour of the vendee or his assignee was fixed as 10.02.2005, on payment of balance sale consideration. It was further agreed that if the vendor failed to perform his part of the agreement then the vendee would be entitled to the double of the earnest money or to get the sale deed executed and registered through the Court. It was further agreed that if the vendee failed to perform his part of the agreement then the earnest money would stand forfeited. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that during his life time, Jai Parkash, the vendee, was willing to perform his part of agreement and after his death, the plaintiffs, as his legal representatives, approached the defendants to perform their part of agreement, in terms of the agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004. Since the defendants kept the matter deferring, therefore, the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated 14.01.2005 asking the defendants to appear in the office of Sub Registrar, Nilokheri on 10.02.2005 for execution of the sale deed, as per the last target date fixed in the agreement. The plaintiffs reached the office of the Sub Registrar on 10.02.2005 with the balance sale consideration and the money required for purchase of stamp papers and other expenses. However, the defendants did not turn up till 5.00 PM. The plaintiffs got their presence marked by moving an application to the Sub Registrar, Nilokheri, who made endorsement thereon and returned the application, along with the affidavit of the plaintiff, which was attested by the Sub Registrar. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs again served registered A.D. legal notice on 18.02.2005; on the defendants asking them to execute the sale deed within 15 days; on receiving balance sale consideration. However, the defendants did not come forward. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendants No. 1 to 3 contested the suit. Written statement was filed, taking routine preliminary objections and contesting the suit on merits. It was pleaded by the contesting defendants that the agreement dated 11.02.2004 was a false, fake, fabricated and fraudulent document. The same was never executed by their predecessor-in-interest, Gurmeet Singh. It was further pleaded that the said Gurmeet Singh was illiterate person addicted to vices and his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers by Jai Parkash, who was a cloth shop owner in Nilokheri. The thumb impressions were obtained by Jai Parkash because Gurmeet Singh used to visit him to purchase cloth from his shop. Further, receipt of Rs. 3.50 Lacs was stated to be a fact; which was false, fabricated and manipulated. It was pleaded that the suit land was part of joint holding of the defendants and other Co-owners. Therefore, Gurmeet Singh, the vendor, could not have delivered the possession of the specific khasra numbers to the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendants that they never received the copy of the alleged notices sent by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, it was the defendants, who through their counsel, had requested the plaintiffs to send the photocopy of the agreement, receipt and other documents pertaining to the agreement. However, these documents were never sent by the plaintiffs. Hence, the dismissal of the suit was prayed for.