MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal filed by the defendants in the suit against whom the suit for specific performance has been decreed and his appeal has also been dismissed.

(2.) The undisputed facts as pleaded and admitted by the parties are that an agreement was entered into between them to sell the land mentioned in the Head Note-A of the plaint @ Rs. 11.5 lakhs per acre on 03.01.2006. An amount of Rs. 23 lakhs was paid in cash and later on another amount of Rs. 8 lakhs was also paid in cash towards advance money. As such a total sum of Rs. 31 lakhs were paid to the defendants/appellants herein. Initially, the target date was fixed to be 27.07.2006. However, by paying the above said Rs. 8 lakhs on 11.08.2006 the target date for executing the sale deed was extended to 28.08.2006. It is claimed by the plaintiff that he appeared on the target date before the concerned Sub Registrar. However, the defendants did not appear and therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. However, the defendants/appellants herein claimed that they remained present before the Sub-Registrar and the plaintiff was not ready with the balance sale consideration, which was Rs. 1,14,50,000/- in all. Therefore, the sale deed could not be executed because the plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by paying the balance sale consideration.

(3.) On 30.08.2006 itself, plaintiff files the suit claiming specific performance. On 1.9.2006 an interim injunction was issued by the Court restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land. On receipt of the notice, the defendants appeared on 7.09.2006 and filed a written statement saying that they were ready and willing to execute the sale deed even now and the plaintiff did not have the requisite money. It was further pleaded that the defendants are ready to execute the sale deed even on the date of filing the written statement if balance sale consideration is paid to them on that very day. Only thing at this stage required on behalf of the plaintiff was to pay the balance sale consideration immediately and to get the sale deed registered. In view of this situation, the only thing which was required to be done by the Court was to pass the decree for execution of the sale deed on payment of the sale consideration. However, that was not done. Then instead of paying the balance money the plaintiff chose to file replication on 23.09.2006 claiming that the land is under mortgage and the defendants have not got the mortgage redeemed as per the terms of the agreement. If the defendants are ready to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement then the plaintiff is also ready to get the sale deed executed as per the terms of the agreement. However, it deserves mention here that in the agreement to sell it is nowhere mentioned, as a matter of fact, that the land agreed to be sold by the defendants was under any mortgage.