RATTAN LAL Vs. BHARPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only argument vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in this Regular Second Appeal, is that the plaintiffs had made an alternative prayer in the suit for grant of liquidated damages/compensation for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and thus, the learned courts below ought not to have granted the decree for specific performance. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Rangaraju Naidhu v. S. Thiruvarakkarsau, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1769.

(2.) In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer certain facts of this case.

(3.) A suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 7.11.1985 executed by the defendants in regard to the suit land was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, Rattan Lal. It was stated that the defendant had agreed to sell the land for the total sale consideration of Rs. 47,000/-. Out of which Rs. 13,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of agreement and the balance was to be paid upon execution of the sale deed which was to be executed on 1.6.1986. The agreement also contains a clause that in the event of default on the part of the defendant, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover Rs. 26,000/- double of the amount paid by them and if the plaintiffs fails to get the sale deed executed in their favour, the earnest money would be forfeited. The plaintiff, Smt. Bharpai, upon informing the defendants had gone to the Court Complex on 31st of May, 1986 alongwith balance consideration and other amount for the purpose of registration of the sale deed. She went there but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff went on 31st of May, 1986 since 1.6.1986 was holiday. When the plaintiff was leaving the Court Complex after inspecting the court record, she met defendant and the defendant requested her to get the date for execution of sale deed extended as he could not obtain necessary clearance and accordingly time for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 5.6.1986 for which again an agreement was executed which was duly thumb marked by the defendant. However, as the defendant failed to appear on that date, the plaintiff given a notice on 10th June, 1986 to execute the sale deed and without any loss of further time filed the present suit.