DUNI CHAND Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant, who after having lost in both the learned Courts below, has filed the instant regular second appeal.

(2.) The parties shall be referred to as the 'plaintiff' and the 'defendant'.

(3.) The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.05.2008. The facts giving rise to filing of the suit are that the defendant is owner in possession of land measuring 0-3-6 bighas being 1/24 share, out of total land measuring 4-0-0 bighas comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 1975/2747, Khasra Kitas 4, land measuring 0-0-3 bigha being 1/6th share, out of total land measuring 0-1-0 bigha, Khata-Khatauni No. 1973/2745, Khasra No. 4825, land measuring 0-0-3 bigha being 1/312 share, out of total land measuring 2-12-0 bigha, Khata Khatauni Nos. 1974/2746, Khasra No. 4840, total land measuring 0-3-12 bighas, along with one single storey lintel measuring 30x24 feet, situated in Phati Kharahal, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. ( hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the defendant as per agreement to sell dated 13.05.2008 had agreed to sell the suit land measuring 0-3-12 bigha along with house in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as earnest money to the defendant and the rest of the sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 31.05.2010, but the same was extended from 31.05.2010 to 26.05.2013. It was further averred that on 26.05.2013, the defendant was informed to come to Tehsil Compound at Kullu and to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff and also to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. It was also averred that the plaintiff remained present in the Tehsil Compound, Kullu from 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. with the balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and the other amount to meet the expenses of execution and registration of the sale deed, but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Even prior to this, a legal notice dated 16.08.2011 was served upon the defendant whereby he was requested to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but despite service, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract and is still ready and willing to perform the same. Lastly , it was averred that the defendant was asked time and again to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but the defendant refused to do so, hence the suit.