PARKASH SINGH Vs. GURDARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the vendor-defendant against whom the suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial Court and whose appeal was also dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance claiming that the defendant-appellant herein who was the owner in possession of the suit property had agreed to sell land measuring 28 Kanals 15 marlas, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 8,50,000/- per acre vide agreement dated 13.06.2006 and had received Rs. 12.00 Lacs towards the part payment of sale consideration and agreed to execute and get registered the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 05.12.2006. It was claimed in the suit that the plaintiff-respondent had always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. However, the appellant herein-defendant deferred the matter on one pretext or the other. On 08.07.2006, a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff through his counsel to the defendant requiring him to execute the sale deed on 08.08.2006 by receiving the balance consideration. On 08.08.2006, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, however, appellant-vendor did not reach the office of the Sub Registrar. It is further pleaded that on 05.12.2006 the original target date fixed in the agreement for execution of the sale deed, again the plaintiff-respondent remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar and waited for the appellant-defendant. However, the defendant did not reach the office. Ultimately, respondent-vendee-plaintiff got his presence recorded in the office of the Sub Registrar by getting the affidavit attested. Thereafter, the suit was filed.

(3.) The present appellant-defendant resisted the suit and took a plea that although the agreement to sell dated 13.06.2006 was entered into between the parties but later on this agreement to sell was cancelled on 23.06.2006 by a cancellation deed and money was returned to the plaintiff. Therefore, it was pleaded that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance.