MAN MOHAN Vs. GHAN SHYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Ghan Shyam had filed a suit against defendant Man Mohan seeking possession by way of specific performance of agreement, on the averments that the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 27/4/2005 with the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.5.00 lacs; that the agreement was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal bearing document No.505 dtd. 27/4/2005; that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to the defendant as part payment/earnest money vide receipt dtd. 27/4/2005 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; that the balance sale consideration amount was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed and final date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 27/10/2005, which was later on extended to 15/11/2005 by mutual consent of both the parties.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and is still ready and willing to do so; that as a matter of fact, he had asked the defendant on several occasions to accept the balance sale consideration and execute and get registered the sale deed in his favour, but to no effect; that on 27/10/2005, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal in the morning; that he was having the balance sale consideration and amount for bearing stamp expenses and he remained present there throughout the day, but the defendant did not turn up; that the plaintiff obtained copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99, which revealed that the defendant had entered into the agreement to sell with plaintiff for the land more than his share; that he was owner in possession of less land than he had agreed to sell to the plaintiff vide agreement in question; that subsequently by mutual consent of both the parties, in order to got his share corrected in the revenue record, the date for execution and registration qua suit land was extended up to 15/11/2005. According to the plaintiff, he had got his presence recorded in the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal by getting an affidavit attested on that very date i.e. 27/4/2005; that the plaintiff had reached the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal on 16/11/2005 as 15/11/2005 was a holiday and that the plaintiff was having with him remaining sale consideration amount and money to bear necessary expenses for purchase of stamp paper and incurring registration charges; that he waited for defendant during office hours in the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal on 16/11/2005 but the defendant did not come there intentionally and knowingly; that the plaintiff had served a legal notice upon the defendant through his counsel but to no effect, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit.

(3.) On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement taking various legal objections challenging the maintainability of the suit in the present form further contenting that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct; that the plaintiff had no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit. On merits, the defendant admitted that he had entered into agreement to sell with the plaintiff with respect to 13 kanals 8 marlas of land on 27/4/2005 for a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs and had got the agreement registered with Sub-Registrar, Palwal; that he had received a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as earnest money, whereas the balance sale amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, however, the defendant denied that the date of execution of sale deed was extended by mutual consent of parties up to 15/11/2005. According to him, the plaintiff was not having sufficient money with him on 27/10/2005 for execution and registration of the sale deed and for paying the balance sale consideration amount and he had asked the defendant to extend the date but the defendant refused to do so, hence agreement dtd. 27/4/2005 stood cancelled and the earnest money paid stood forfeited; that the defendant denied that plaintiff had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal on 27/10/2005 having balance consideration amount and money for bearing registration and ancillary charges or the defendant did not go there to execute the sale deed; the defendant further denied that date of execution and registration was extended up to 15/11/2005. According to the defendant, on 27/10/2005, the then Chief Minister of the State had visited Hodal Town and Sub-Registrar Palwal was not present in his office on that date but the plaintiff might have succeeded in getting the affidavit attested after the date fixed; that on 27/10/2005 the plaintiff was not having sufficient money for payment of balance sale consideration and this question came up before the defendant and on 27/10/2005 presence of any of the parties was not marked by Sub-Registrar, Palwal. According to the defendant, he had served a notice upon the plaintiff after expiry of the date fixed for execution of the sale deed and as a counter- blast on receipt of that notice, the plaintiff sent alleged notice, which was not received by the defendant. Refuting the remaining allegations in the plaint, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.