NAURJALA ALIAS NIRJLA DEVI Vs. MAHESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No.60 of 2008.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that Mahesh Kumar and The Parkash (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs for convenience sake) instituted a suit under sections 5 and 15 of the Specific Relief Act 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. and sections 9 and 26 read with order 7 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for possession by specific performance of contract dated 2.12.1996, extended from 25.11.1997 to 31.12.1998 and from 31.12.1998 to 31.12.1999 with respect to land comprised in Khata No. 120 min, Khatauni No. 135 min, Khasra No. 1396/958 measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas situated in Mauza Mati Morian, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the suit land ) on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land is recorded in the ownership and possession of appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as defendant for convenience sake). Defendant on 2.12.1996 entered into an agreement to sell the suit land in writing in favour of plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. Plaintiff No.1 purchased 4/5th share whereas plaintiff No.2 purchased 1/5th share of the suit land and defendant agreed to execute sale deed on or before 30.11.1997. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 2.12.1996 and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and attestation of sale deed. Plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the balance amount of sale consideration, i.e. Rs. 40,000/- and to pay the price of stamp papers and registration but the defendant was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. She requested for the extension of time and the period was extended from 30.11.1997 to 31.12.1998 on 25.11.1997 by writing in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter defendant again sought time on 17.12.1998 in writing for extending period from 31.12.1998 to 31.12.1999. The legal notices were issued by the plaintiffs to defendant on 4.2.2000 vide separate postal receipts.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. Case of the defendant, in a nutshell, is that she did not execute agreement to sell and the question of sale deed or balance amount does not arise at all.