GURMAIL SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case of appellant-Gurmail Singh (plaintiff), in brief, is that respondent-Gurcharan Singh (defendant) was owner in possession of 1/3rd share of land measuring 86 kanals situated in village Mal Singh Wala, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, as fully described in headnote of the plaint. He agreed to sell land bearing khasra no. 86//13 (8-0), 77//23/1 (4-0), 86//3 (8-0), 8(8-0) @ Rs.2,26,000.00 per killa vide agreement dtd. 22/1/2005 and received Rs.1,50,000.00 as earnest money. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 7/5/2005, which was extended vide writing dtd. 5/5/2005 to 20/5/2005. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and has been requesting the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant has represented himself to be owner of 32 kanals but on perusal of revenue record he was found to be owner of 28 kanals 3 marlas i.e. 1/3rd share of the land measuring 86 kanals. On 20/5/2005, plaintiff remained present 1 of 10 in the office of Sub-Registrar with balance sale consideration and other expenses from 08.30 a.m. to 05.30 p.m. but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed. Even later on he was requested to execute the sale deed but of no avail, hence this suit.

(2.) The defendant admitted execution of agreement dtd. 22/1/2005 and alleged that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the date fixed for execution of the sale deed i.e. 20/5/2005, he had approached the plaintiff and in the presence of Hardev Singh, Namberdar and other witnesses requested him to get the sale deed executed as he himself had entered into an agreement to purchase some other land and given Rs.2.00 lakhs as earnest money. The plaintiff apprised that he was not having the balance sale consideration and was arranging for money. On 20/5/2005, the defendant alongwith Hardev Singh Namberdar and other witnesses remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar from 09.00 a.m. and waited for the plaintiff, who did not turn up. They got their presence marked with Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell with a view to get better price of the land, which he could not get as prices of the land had fallen down. Now after the increase in prices of land he has filed this suit. Due to the conduct of the plaintiff, the defendant had suffered great loss. He could not get executed sale deed of the land he intended to purchase and his earnest money was forfeited.

(3.) Pleadings of the parties led to framing of the issues as follows:-