ROHTASH Vs. GHISA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants/defendants are in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2017, whereby the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent upholding the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014 decreeing the suit of specific performance.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, as noticed by learned First Appellate Court in para 2 of its impugned judgment, are that the case of the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff for short) are that the defendant-Rohtash (predecessor of the appellants) being owner in possession of the land measuring 8 Kanal (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land for brevity) i.e. 364/2229 share out of the land comprised in Khewat No. 52, Khatoni No. 62, Kita 27 total area measuring 107 Kanal 17 Marla vide Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 situated within the revenue estate of village Balaha Kalan, District Mohindergarh had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff/respondent for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-vide agreement dated 27.07.2010 and received a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- as earnest money. The remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on 30.05.2011. Thereafter on demand of the defendant, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to him on 28.10.2010 and a receipt in this regard was executed. The plaintiff/respondent always remained ready and willing for getting the sale deed executed but the defendant started doing negotiations with someone else for selling the suit land, pursuant to which, the plaintiff had to file a civil suit No. 20 of 2011 titled as Ghisa Ram v. Rohtash against the defendant. Thereafter as per the conditions of the agreement dated 27.07.2010, the plaintiff/respondent along with remaining sale consideration, stamps, tahrir etc. remained present before the office of Sub Registrar, Narnaul on 30.05.2011 for execution of the sale deed but the defendant did not come and ultimately the plaintiff/respondent got his presence marked before Sub Registrar, Narnaul by attestation of an affidavit from there. Thereafter the defendant delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter a legal notice was sent to the defendant through Shri Ramautar Yadav Advocate for getting the sale deed executed on 20.06.2011. On 20.06.2011 also the plaintiff/respondent alongwith remaining sale consideration, stamps, tahrir etc. again remained present before the office of Sub Registrar, Narnaul for execution of the sale deed but the defendant did not come and ultimately the plaintiff got his presence marked before Sub Registrar, Narnaul through an attested affidavit. Thus the plaintiff/respondent always remained ready and willing to perform his part of agreement but it was the defendant who did not get the sale deed executed. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit.

(3.) In his written statement, the defendant while taking preliminary objections with regard to locus standi etc. submitted that neither he entered into an agreement with the plaintiff/respondent nor he received the earnest money from the plaintiff/respondent as alleged. The defendant also admitted the institution of civil suit No. 20 of 2011 titled as Ghisa Ram v. Rohtash by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant but it was submitted that on knowing the facts of the case, a notice dated 25.05.2011 was sent to the plaintiff/respondent through Shri Mahabir Prasad Sharma Advocate on 25.05.2011 and thereafter the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff on 31.10.2011. The plaintiff/respondent has concocted a false story. Rest pleadings in the plaint were denied. It was prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed with costs.