DES RAJ Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 29/11/2001 filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 3/6/2011. The appeal preferred by unsuccessful plaintiff did not find favour with the Additional District Judge (ADJ-III), Ferozepur.

(2.) In brief, case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the respondent/defendant agreed to sell land measuring 16 kanal, detailed in para 2 of the judgment of trial Court vide agreement to sell dtd. 29/11/2001 for sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000.00 and received a sum of Rs.1,40,000.00 as earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 15/5/2002. Possession of suit land was handed over to the appellant by the respondent. On the stipulated date, the appellant remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Fazilka with balance sale consideration and expenses of registration etc. but the respondent did not turn up. He got attested an affidavit regarding his presence. The appellant always remained ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. On 3/2/2005, the respondent in presence of witnesses extended the period for sale deed to 15/6/2006. On 15/6/2006, the appellant remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Fazilka to perform his part of the agreement but the respondent failed to come. Hence the suit.

(3.) The respondent/defendant filed the written statement and in turn, raised preliminary objections inter alia that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; the appellant has no locus standi to file the suit; the agreement is not a registered document; the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation. On merits, the factum of execution of agreement to sell and so also terms and conditions stipulated therein were admitted. However, it was denied that plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The answering defendant never gave his consent for extension of date for execution and registration of sale deed. All other material averments of the plaint were denied with a prayer for dismissal of suit.