DALJIT SINGH Vs. JANRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff is in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2007 passed by the trial Court whereby the relief sought for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell had been declined and the suit was partly decreed for alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 40, 000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum, which has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2009.

(2.) It would be apt to give facts emanated from the pleadings of the parties, resulting into decisions of the Courts below. The appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit on 23.11992 claiming specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990 in respect of land measuring 79 kanals 9 marlas @Rs. 80, 000/- per acre against the payment of earnest money of Rs. 40, 000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 7, 54, 000/- was to be paid to the defendant No.1 at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 30.11.199 As per the averment in the plaint, the agreement to sell contained usual term and condition that if defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of the agreement, the plaintiff could seek the specific performance of the agreement through the process of the court. Even the defendant No.1 did not come forward for performance of his part of the contract. The plaintiff remained present on 30.11.1992 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shahkot with the balance sale consideration with all the expenses for stamp papers from morning to evening but defendant No.1 did not turn up to perform his part of the agreement. The appellant-plaintiff marked his presence by submitting an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate. When the defendant No.1 did not come forward, the suit aforementioned was filed within 23 days of the expiry of period stipulated in the agreement for execution and registration of the agreement to sell.

(3.) The defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement and denied the execution of the agreement to sell, much less, receipt of the earnest money. It was further averred that the land in question was joint Hindu family/coparcenary property. All the other averments in the plaint were denied. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 namely Shingara Singh son of Labh Singh also impleaded as party on 25.1.1993 on the premise that defendant No.1 Janraj Singh, vendor, on 8.1.1993 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property on the basis of the alleged agreement to sell, dated 19.11.1990 for a sum of Rs. 6, 45, 937.50 i.e., after the institution of the suit wherein on 24.12.1992, status quo order qua alienation with regard to share of defendant No.1 was granted till 12.1.199