PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. RASHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower Courts, whereby the suit filed by Rashpal Singh respondent for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.6.1993 was decreed and the first appeal filed by the appellants dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent was that on 29.6.1993, Kishan Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 31 kanals, out of total land measuring 128 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Tangralia. The price was agreed to be Rs. 72,500/- per acre and an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was received in cash by Kishan Chand from the plaintiff and it was further agreed that the sale-deed would be executed and got registered on or before 29.5.1996 after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 11,037.50. The plaintiff waited for the appearance of Kishan Chand on 29.5.1996 in the office of Sub Registrar, Mukerian along with balance sale consideration and expenses of registration but he did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked in the evening by way of an affidavit. A notice was thereafter served upon the plaintiff by the defendants through their counsel and from the same, he came to know that Kishan Chand had died and the defendants were his legal heirs, therefore, bound to perform their part of the contract as per agreement to sell dated 29.6.1993. The defendants refused to perform their part of the contract and thus, intentionally and willfully breached the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff had requested the defendants to admit his claim and to execute and the sale-deed in his favour but his efforts were in vain. He then filed the suit for joint possession by way of specific performance of the agreement in question.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed but the contest was mainly on issue No. 1 as to whether the predecessor of the defendants executed an agreement to sell dated 29.6.1993 in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.