MUNISH CHOPRA Vs. HARDEV KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm Nos.6642-C and 6643-C of 2009

(2.) Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment dated 28.07.2008 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ludhiana, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

(3.) The facts of the case are that one Hardial Singh (now deceased) son of Thaman Singh was allotted one Plot No.60E, measuring 400 sq. yards in Rishi Balmik Nagar, 256 Acre Scheme, by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (for short 'the Trust')-defendant No.3. A memo dated 07.11.1989 certifying the allotment was issued to the said Hardial Singh. In terms of the allotment, Hardial Singh deposited Rs. 12,000/- being 1/4th payment of the total sale consideration of Rs. 48,000/- on the next day i.e. 08.11.1989. The balance 75% was to be deposited in five six monthly installments along with interest @ 10% per annum. It was stipulated in the allotment letter that if the payment is not made, the plot can be resumed or the entire amount has to be deposited with the Trust along with interest and penalty @ 20% of the cost of the plot. The allotment of the said plot was made to said Hardial Singh, out of quota of Local Displaced Persons (LDP). Hardial Singh had already deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- on 09.04.1975 with the Trust on account of his entitlement for allotment of a plot. Hardial Singh died in the year 1990, leaving behind defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, before his death on 12.12.1989, he entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff through his General Power of Attorney Naginder Singh to sell the said plot for Rs. 2,00,000/-. Rs. 2,00,000 were paid by the plaintiff-appellant to said Hardial Singh at the time of said agreement dated 12.12.1989 and the remaining costs of the plot were to be paid to the Trust by the plaintiff-appellant. Naginder Singh also executed a registered Special Power of Attorney in favour of a person, namely, Narinder Bhalla, named by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been approaching defendant Nos.3 and 4 i.e. the Trust for accepting the balance payment but they kept putting of the matter on the pretext that the entire allotments made by the Trust to the Local Displaced Persons has been stayed by the State Government. Thereafter, the plaintiffappellant filed suit for specific performance of the agreement by defendant No.1 and 2 and sought mandatory injunction against defendant Nos.3 and 4, directing them to accept the balance payment of the allotted plot No.60E, situated in Rishi Balmik Nagar, 256 Acre Scheme by the Trust, to the plaintiff-appellant.