KRISHAN KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against consistent findings recorded by the Courts below whereby suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 1/1/2008 has been decreed with a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to pay remaining sale consideration to defendant No.1 within three months with liberty to get the sale deed executed through process of the Court in case defendant No.1 fails to execute the same.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that as per case of the respondent/plaintiff, Chhaju Ram - defendant No.1 agreed to sell land measuring 8 kanals comprised in killa No.21/11 for sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000.00 and executed agreement to sell dtd. 1/1/2008. An amount of Rs.2,80,000.00 was paid towards earnest money and remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed on 30/6/2008. The time for execution of sale deed was extended to 1/8/2008. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On 1/8/2008, the plaintiff visited office of Joint Sub Registrar Nangal Chaudhary with balance sale consideration and other expenses but defendant No.1 did not come present to perform his part of the agreement. The plaintiff got his presence marked by way of an affidavit attested from the Executive Magistrate Nangal Chaudhary. He got issued legal notices dtd. 12/8/2008, 31/7/2009, 11/11/2009, 10/2/2010, 1/5/2010 and 15/3/2011 through his counsel but defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed. Defendant No.1 executed release deed dtd. 11/4/2008 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 on the basis whereof mutation No.687 dtd. 3/11/2009 was sanctioned which is wrong and liable to be declared null and void.

(3.) The defendants filed joint written statement and, in turn, denied the allegations raised by the plaintiff. It is averred that defendant No.1 never executed agreement to sell dtd. 1/1/2008 nor received Rs.2,80,000.00 by way of earnest money. Defendant No.1 is an illiterate person who does not know to append his signatures and used to put his thumb impressions. The plaintiff is an Advocate by profession and if he procured any affidavit to create evidence, the same is not binding on the defendants. The plaintiff never issued registered notice to the defendants. Defendants No.2 to 4 are the co-parceners in the suit property. Defendant No.1 is an extravagant person and already sold 12 kanals out of 30 kanals of land. All other material averments of the plaint are denied with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.