KARNAIL SINGH Vs. KISHAN SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide agreement dated 28th August, 1975, Karnail Singh defendant appellant agreed to sell his 10 Killas 18 Marlas of land comprised in Khewat No. 156-57, Khatauni Nos. 74-210. Rectangle No. 23, Killa, Nos. 16/2 and 25, situated in village Gajju Gazi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur to Kishan Singh plaintiff. respondent for Rs. 27,000/- (Rupees twenty-seven thousand only) on or before 15th December, 1975. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) was obtained as advance while entering into the agreement and the balance was agreed to be paid before the Sub Registrar.

(2.) Vendor defendant-appellant did not execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement dated 28th August, 1975. Plaintiff respondent Kishan Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 28th August, 1975, which was decreed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Gurdaspur, on 31 st January, 1977. It would not be out of place to mention here that defend ant appellant Karnail Singh attempted to sell the disputed lands to one Ram Singh before 15th December, 1975. Vigilant buyer in plaintiff respondent Kishan Singh could thwart this attempt of the defendant appellant by filing a suit for permanent injunction. Defendant-appellant has, however. done so during the pendency of the present R.F.A. in this Court, after depositing Rs. 10,000/, Rupees ten thousand only, allegedly received as advance in terms of the agreement of sale date 28th August, 1975, and obtaining stay of operation of the learned trial Court's judgment, vide order dated 27th April, 1977, of this Court.

(3.) Defendant appellant has been asserting all through that he was paid Rs. 4,000/(Rupees four thousand only) as advance as against Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) claimed by the plaintiff-respondent and that it was the plaintiff respondent who had not adhered to the terms of the agreement of sale and was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was, therefore, averred that the claim for specific performance of the agreement of sale was wrongly decreed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff respondent.