NIRMAL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having lost before the two Courts below, the unsuccessful defendants-appellants, have preferred the present regular second appeal against the judgment dated 03.07.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala, affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2012 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Naraingarh, vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed with the costs for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2003 regarding land measuring 19 kanals, 2 marlas, as detailed in the decree, situated in village Ratour, H.B. No.252, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, after payment of balance sale consideration within a period of two months. The defendants-appellants were directed to execute the agreement to sell, failing which the plaintiffrespondent will be entitled to get it executed through Court of law.

(2.) The facts of the case, according to the plaintiff-respondent, are that defendants-appellants, namely, Nirmal Singh and Jaswinder Singh being the owners of the land measuring 19 kanals, 2 marlas agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff-respondent, vide agreement dated 30.12.2003 @ Rs. 2,33,000/- per acre, total amounting to Rs. 5,56,287.50/-. Rs. 1,00,000/- were paid as earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid on or before 30.06.2004. It was stated that the plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on the date fixed but the defendants-appellants did not turn up to execute the sale deed.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendants-appellants took the stand that they had approached the office of Sub Registrar on 30.06.2004 and remained there from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. but the plaintiff-respondent did not turn up to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff-respondent had been putting of the matter on one or the other pretext. The defendants-appellants also served legal notice through Advocate on 23.08.2004, which was received by opposite side but in spite of that plaintiff-respondent did not appear in the Registrar Office on 10.09.2004.