MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. BHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for specific performance qua agreement to sell dtd. 21/4/2005 in respect of land measuring 17 kanal 17-3/5 marlas situated in village Uksi, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana at the rate of Rs.1,15,000.00 per bigha was decreed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants, at the outset, would inform that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to execution of agreement to sell dtd. 21/4/2005 Ex.P1, terms and conditions incorporated therein and payment of an amount of Rs.6,80,000.00 towards earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. It has been submitted that there is a serious dispute between the parties with regard to readiness and willingness of the respondent/plaintiff to perform her part of the agreement i.e. getting the sale deed executed on payment of balance sale consideration and incurring expenses qua registration and purchase of stamp papers etc. In this regard, it has been argued that as per the agreement, stipulated date for execution of sale deed was 30/4/2005.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff called upon the appellants to come to the office of Sub Registrar concerned on 28/4/2005 for execution of the sale deed. It is argued with vehemence that the appellants went to the office of Sub Registrar Malout on 28/4/2005 and 2/5/2005 as during the intervening three days, office of Sub Registrar, Malout was not working but the respondent/plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed though she tried to create evidence in her favour that she had gone to the office of Sub Registrar on the aforesaid two dates i.e. 28/4/2005 and 2/5/2005. To bring home his contention with regard to conduct of the respondent/plaintiff, it is argued with vehemence that the respondent/plaintiff examined a witness from Bank of India, Malout to prove withdrawal of an amount of Rs.5,50,000.00 on 2/5/2005 but the said amount was again deposited with the Bank on 2/5/2005 itself, sufficient to show that entries of withdrawal and deposit were got made with an intent to create evidence to be used in future. It is argued that had the respondent/plaintiff been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement, she should have waited in the office of Sub Registrar till 5 PM on 2/5/2005 but she was not there upto that time as the amount withdrawn on that day has been deposited on 2/5/2005 itself when as per the statement of Pawan Kumar PW-5, the bank receives deposits only upto 4 PM.