SHAMA Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 13.2.2008 and that of the learned First Appellate Court dated 18.2.2009.

(2.) In a suit for specific performance preferred by the plaintiff - respondent both the Courts came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell in favour of the respondent stood established as also was passing of the consideration and the willingness and readiness of the plaintiff-respondent to perform his part of the agreement whereas the appellant failed to abide by the agreement. Suit was therefore decreed and the appellant was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent.

(3.) It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent that there was in existence an agreement dated 19.1.2001 in which the appellant had agreed to sell some share in the suit property. It was pleaded that Smt. Om Pati wife of the plaintiff and other family members are owners of the agricultural land comprised in khewat No. 145 to 147 and they are in possession thereof and that the appellant is owner of part of the agricultural land comprised in khewat No. 209 to 211. The land adjoins the land of the plaintiff-respondent and he agreed to purchase some portion of land comprised in rectangle No. 85 and 86 from which the appellant agreed to sell 10 kanals and 10 marlas land out of the land of Rect. No. 85 & 86, representing 210/5566 share of khewat No. 204 khata No. 209 to 211 of 278 kanals and 6 marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,93,750/- out of whichRs.60,000/- was paid as part consideration at the time of execution of the sale. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,33,750/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. It was to be executed on or before 30.5.2001. The agreement to sell also gave an option to the plaintiff respondent either to claim Rs. 1,20,000/- i.e. double the amount of earnest money in case of failure of the appellant to execute the sale deed. Since the appellant failed to execute his part of the agreement, a legal notice was served upon him requiring him to execute the sale deed. Prior thereto the plaintiff-respondent was present in the office of Sub-Registrar and got his attendance marked. In the meantime, the appellant sold the suit property and therefore the prayer was also made by the plaintiff to declare that sale as null and void.