LAWS(P&H)-2009-4-140

LAKHVIR SINGH Vs. CHANAN MASIH

Decided On April 30, 2009
Lakhvir Singh Appellant
V/S
Chanan Masih Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' appeal filed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 5.8.1999 and that of the first appellate Court dated 5.2.2009

(2.) THE plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for specific performance seeking to enforce the agreement to sell dated 21.4.1994 supposedly executed by respondents No. 1 to 7 in their favour for sale of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,51,000/- per acre and Rs. 1,00,000/- were received as earnest money and the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 23.6.1995. It is the case of the appellants that on the date of the execution of the agreement the persons arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 7 after receipt of the amount also executed a receipt in their favour and thereafter the appellants made numerous efforts to get the sale deed executed but the respondents failed to do so. On 23.6.1995, on the assurance of respondents No. 1 to 7 the appellants came to the Tehsil premises with the remaining amount ready with them for execution of the sale deed but the respondents did not turn up. The appellants got an affidavit attested by getting their presence marked in the Tehsil premises and they also moved an application to the Sub-Registrar to the effect that they were present. Thereafter, it was alleged that the sale deed was got executed by the respondents No. 1 to 7 in favour of respondent No. 8.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 7 contested the suit and pleaded that on 23.6.1995 the appellants did not turn up to get the sale deed executed, whereas they remained present in the Tehsil complex from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. It was further submitted that the appellants did not accompany them for getting the no objection certificate from the authorities concerned as was agreed earlier and thereafter they got issued a legal notice through counsel asking the appellants to perform their part of the contract, on 27.9.1995. Since the appellants failed to perform their part of the agreement despite the notice, they sold the suit land to respondent No. 8.