BALDEV SINGH Vs. VIKAS SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants No.1 to 11 are in regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for alternative relief of recovery of Rs.40,00,000/- already paid as earnest money along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receiving the earnest money till the date of recovery and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 26.12.2005 executed between the parties vide which defendants No.1 to 11 agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs @ Rs.41,00,000/- per acre. Plaintiffs sought declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 24.08.2010 executed by defendants No.1 to 11 in favour of defendants No.12 to 19 is illegal, null and void and consequent mutation is also liable to be set aside. In alternative, plaintiffs sought recovery of Rs.2,44,97,500/- i.e. Rs.40,00,000/- already paid as earnest money and Rs.2,04,97,500/- as damages towards loss of interest and business along with interest @ 18% per annum till realization. Plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit property. The total sale consideration of Rs.2,44,97,500/- was fixed out of which the defendants received earnest money of Rs.40,00,000/-. The date of execution and registration of sale deed was fixed on or before 10.06.2006 for receiving balance sale consideration. Initially, 19 defendants were impleaded in the suit, but the suit was dismissed as withdrawn qua defendants No.12 to 19. Plaintiffs alleged that they had gone to the office of Sub Registrar on 10.06.2006 along with balance sale consideration and miscellaneous expenses, but the defendants did not turn up and the sale deed could not be executed as it was holiday. Plaintiffs again contacted the defendants and requested them to come present on 12.06.2006 for executing the sale deed. Plaintiffs remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 12.06.2006 along with balance sale consideration and miscellaneous expenses, but the defendants did not turn up to execute and register the sale deed. During pendency of the suit, defendants No.1 to 11 sold the land in favour of defendants No.12 to 19. With this background, the suit came to be filed.

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 11 contested the suit by filing joint written statement. Para Nos.1 and