HEM RAJ Vs. LEELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 22/5/2008 of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 16/8/2007 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.2,31,750.00, i.e., Rs.2,25,000.00 as principal and Rs.6750.00 as interest @ 12% per annum, has been reversed.

(2.) Appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit aforementioned on 13/6/2006 on the premise that on 24/3/2006, one plot consisting of Khata No.23/40, Khasra No.217//14/2 (0-18), situated in the area of Barnala was agreed to be sold by the respondent-defendant for a consideration of Rs.1,26,000.00 per biswa (452 sq. feet). A sum of Rs.2,25,000.00 was paid to the defendant. The stipulated date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 24/5/2006 and the remaining consideration was to be paid at the relevant point of time, much less possession. Plaintiff acquired the knowledge that defendant entered into an agreement dtd. 24/1/2006 with previous owner Rajesh Garg son of Girdhari Lal, resident of Street No.9, Ram Bagh backside Sarvhitkari School, Barnala. The agreement to sell in question was attested by Rinka son of Girdhari Lal and Jiwan Lal son of Dharam Pal, residents of Barnala. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by remaining present in the office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date, but the defendant did not turn up. In view of such, his presence was marked vide affidavit dtd. 24/5/2006.

(3.) The aforementioned suit was contested by the defendant by denying the agreement to sell dtd. 24/1/2006 allegedly executed with one Rajesh Kumar, but on the same very date, i.e., 24/1/2006, plaintiff had agreed to purchase the land in dispute by denying the agreement to sell dtd. 24/3/2006, much less stipulated date. Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The agreement in question envisaged that the defendant would bring the original owner Rajesh Kumar for execution and registration of the sale deed. The defendant and Rajesh Kumar were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Objection qua maintainability of the suit much less locus standi was also taken.