INDER SINGH Vs. KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that defendant Inder Singh being co-sharer in the suit land situated at village Rajana entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs Mauji Ram and Hari Ram on 26/7/1997 at the rate of Rs.2,35,000.00 per acre receiving a sum of Rs.1,25,000.00 as earnest money; that the agreement to sell was scribed by a regular Deed Writer and attested by Sh.Raghbir Singh, resident of village Kharak Gagar; that the final date for execution of sale deed was fixed to be on or before 18/7/1997 when remaining consideration amount was to be paid; that it was also agreed that defendant set No.1 would get the suit land redeemed from the PARD Bank, Safidon before execution of the sale deed; that it was also agreed that in case defendant set No.1 failed to get the suit land redeemed and perform his part of agreement by the date fixed, then he would be liable to pay double of the earnest money received by him or in the alternative plaintiffs would have a right to get the sale deed qua the suit land executed through Court of law; that possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs at the time of entering into an agreement; that the plaintiffs had been ready and willing to perform their part of contract and in that regard had appeared before Sub Registrar on 18/7/1997 with the balance sale consideration for execution and registration of the sale deed but despite notice, defendant set No.1 did not redeem the suit land up to 18/7/1997 and did not turn up to execute and get registered the sale deed; that the plaintiffs got their presence recorded before Sub Registrar, Pillukhera on 18/7/1997; that in the meanwhile defendant set No.1 got the joint land partitioned and sold some land to defendants set No.2 vide sale deeds No.525 dtd. 13/1/1999 and 107 dtd. 25/5/1998 only to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs and to cause harassment to them, in that way playing fraud not only with plaintiffs but with defendants set No.2 also.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs had brought a suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell against the defendants after declaring the sale deeds executed by defendant set No.1 in favour of defendants set No.2 as well as mutations sanctioned on the basis thereof to be illegal, null and void besides craving for grant of order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property to any other person.

(3.) On notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statements contesting the suit. In the written statement filed by him defendant set No.1 controverted the assertions in the plaint submitting that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their own act and conduct; that as a matter of fact defendant set No.1 was ready to execute and get registered the sale deed on 18/7/1997 and was present in the office of Sub Registrar for that purpose; that he was accompanied by S/Sh.Baljeet Singh, Rattan Lal and Om Parkash, LVO, PLDB, Safidon since defendant set No.1 had himself called the bank authorities to the office of Sub-Registrar, Pillukhera; that an application for marking the presence of answering defendant was moved before Sub Registrar Pillukhera, which was returned to him after marking his presence; that as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs did not have money to pay the balance consideration amount and to bear ancillary expenses and as such refused to get the sale deed executed in their favour, in that way they were not ready and willing to perform their part of agreement. Such defendant had admitted the execution of agreement to sell and receipt of Rs.1,25,000.00 stating that Rs.1,05,000.00 were paid at the time of execution of agreement and Rs.20,000.00 were adjusted with regard to pronote and receipt dtd. 1/7/1996. Such defendant took various other legal objections contending that the suit was barred by limitation; that suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit; that the plaintiffs were guilty of concealment of the facts. In the end, such defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.