SAMEER AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAMVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for possession of land measuring 18 kanal out of land fully detailed in head note of the plaint by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.10.1998 was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2009 and the appeal preferred by unsuccessful appellants/defendants did not find favour with the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Court in Appeal").

(2.) The trial court decreed the suit to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to performance of agreement to sell dated 7.10.1998 (Ex. P1) regarding land measuring 18 kanal comprised in khewat No. 86 to 91, described in head note of the plaint, executed by defendants in his favour. The defendants are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff within a period of three months on payment of balance sale consideration failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed through agency of the Court. Any subsequent sale of suit land during pendency of suit would be hit by doctrine of lis pendence. Defendants are further restrained from alienating the suit land to any other person except the plaintiff.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the appellants/defendants represented to the respondent-plaintiff that by virtue of a family settlement, they are owners of a specific part of land abutting Hoshiarpur-Chandigarh road. The respondent entered into an agreement to sell dated 7.10.1998 whereby the appellants agreed to sell the suit land for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- and received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards earnest money. The remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed on or before 20.2.1999. On the day of execution of the sale deed it was found that no oral family settlement was reflected in the revenue record and defendants could not sell any specific piece of land. The defendants assured to get the family settlement implemented in the record and then to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but they failed to do so. The plaintiff served legal notice dated 22.12.2001 calling upon the appellants to get the mutation sanctioned and execute sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the appellants failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell but in the alternative, sought a decree for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards refund of earnest money and consolidated damages.