SUBHASH CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful defendant is in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below, whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.12.2008, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 18.04.2012 and the first appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2015.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned Additional District Judge in para 2 of his impugned judgment, are that the appellant-defendant being owner of land measuring 6 kanals situated within the revenue estate of village Takoran, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra as fully detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land' for short) entered into an agreement of sale of the same along with all rights appurtenant thereto with the respondent-plaintiff vide an agreement dated 09.12.2008, so executed by the appellant-defendant in favour of the respondent-plaintiff @ Rs. 8 lakhs per acre and on that day the appellant-defendant received a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as of earnest money from the respondent-plaintiff and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed of the disputed land, which was agreed to be executed on or before 20.11.2009 and it was also agreed between the parties that in case the appellant-defendant would fail to execute the sale deed of the disputed land in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, in that eventuality, the appellant-defendant would pay double of the amount of the earnest money to the respondent-plaintiff and the respondent-plaintiff would also be entitled to get the sale deed of the disputed land executed and registered through the process of the Court and in case the respondent-plaintiff would fail to perform his part of contract then the earnest money so paid by him to the appellant-defendant would stand forfeited. It was further asserted that thereafter the respondent-plaintiff approached the appellant-defendant along with the balance sale consideration several times for the purposes of execution and registration of the sale deed of the disputed land as per terms of the agreement dated 09.12.2008, but the appellant-defendant prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and on 20.11.2009 i.e. the target date, the respondent-plaintiff along with balance sale consideration and other requisite expenses came to the office of Sub Registrar, Pehowa for the purposes of execution and registration of the sale deed of the disputed land and waited for the appellant-defendant but he did not turn up. It was further asserted that thereafter the respondent-plaintiff met the appellant-defendant and requested him for execution of the sale deed of the disputed land as per terms of the agreement of sale dated 9.12.2008 but the appellant-defendant again prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further asserted that the respondent-plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract but it was the appellant-defendant, who prolonged the matter without any reasonable excuse. It was further asserted that the respondent-plaintiff also got served upon the appellant-defendant a legal notice through his counsel on 27.11.2009 with a request to perform his part of contract as per the terms of agreement dated 09.12.2008 and which notice was duly received by the appellant-defendant, but despite the same, the appellant-defendant failed to perform his part of contract.

(3.) Having been served in the suit, defendant put appearance and filed his contesting written statement, taking more than one preliminary objections. Plaintiff filed his replication. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: -