RISAL Vs. ALAM CHAND (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-Defendants are aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 18.02.1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Gurugram whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.06.1978 has been decreed. Appellants are also aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20.02.1998, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur Jhirka. Learned trial Court while declining the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.06.1978, ordered recovery of the amount of Rs.7,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 06.02.1978 till realization. Learned District Judge, however, while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissing that of the present appellants-defendants, granted the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Aggrieved therefrom present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that suit for specific performance of agreement dated 02.06.1978 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent Alam Chand (now represented by his legal heirs) while pleading that defendant Suleman @ Salla (now represented by his legal heirs/the present appellants) entered into an agreement to sell his land measuring 50 Kanals 12 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Reeghar as detailed in the plaint, for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Suit property was also under mortgage with its possession with Naresh Kumar etc. for a sum of Rs.12,000/-. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would be responsible for payment of the mortgage amount and the said amount of Rs.12,000/- shall be adjusted in the sale consideration. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.7,000/- was claimed to have been paid to Suleman at the time of execution of the agreement, after adjustment of the amount of Rs.12,000/- (mortgage amount). Balance of Rs.1,000/- was payable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, which was agreed to be executed on 24.08.1979. Plaintiff claimed to be ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation but the defendant-Suleman did not come forward. Plaintiff appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 24.08.1979 along with the remaining consideration amount, besides the requisite amount for the stamp and registration charges. However, the defendant did not turn up on the stipulated date. An application for getting his presence marked was moved by the plaintiff on 24.08.1979. Registered notice was issued to to the defendant for execution of the sale deed but defendant refused to accept the notice. In the meantime, defendant passed away but his successors in interest also did not honour the agreement. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the present suit filed on 06.02.1980 at the first instance was decreed in favour of the plaintiff while proceeding ex-parte against the defendant on 30.04.1980 by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurugram. An application under Order 9 Rule 13, read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 21.08.1984. Appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurugram vide judgment dated 28.11.1984. Civil Revision No.105 of 1985 filed by legal representatives of Suleman was allowed by this Court on 14.05.1992. The parties were directed to appear before the Senior Sub Judge, Gurugram on 17.07.1992. It was further directed that the suit be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months. The said order dated 14.05.1992 was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 11729 of 1992. Further proceedings before the learned Trial Court were stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.09.1992. However, SLP (Civil) No.11729 of 1992 was ultimately dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.04.1996. Thereafter, the matter proceeded before the learned trial Court.