LAWS(HPH)-2011-5-135

HUSSAN LAL Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

Decided On May 17, 2011
HUSSAN LAL Appellant
V/S
RAMESH CHANDER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed in both the Courts below, the appellant filed the present Second Appeal, which is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) PRECISELY the facts giving rise to the present Regular Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are that the respondent to be referred as 'the plaintiff' hereinafter, filed a suit against the appellant now to be called as 'the defendant', for seeking relief of specific performance of oral agreement qua "Ahata abadi" marked by letters CDEF shown in red colour in the site plan Ext.P1, as detailed in the plaint, which is half of the total land marked by letters ABCD and a part of khasra No.2758, as per Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, situated near Bhai Jawahar Singh Dharamsala in the Municipal Area of Una town, now referred as 'the suit land' by executing sale- deed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, in alternative for the recovery of '6,800/- inclusive of interest, or any other relief which the Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) THE suit was resisted and contested by the defendant and raised the preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action. However, on merits, he admitted the agreement as alleged for a consideration of '77,000/- and also the receipt of '5,000/-, as earnest money. It is the case of the defendant that he informed plaintiff that it was not possible to sell the suit land adjoining to Rameshwar Kapila till its mutation is sanctioned and after the sanction of mutation in his name he requested the plaintiff to get the sale-deed executed on payment of balance amount of '72,000/- within one month, but he always pretended that his FDRs have not yet matured. Thus, he failed to perform his part of the contract. According to the defendant, the plaintiff could not arrange for the money within one month from the date of sanction of mutation in the name of the defendant, thus the advance amount received by him stood forfeited and relief sought cannot be granted.