AVTAR KAUR Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original plaintiff, late Sh. Tajinder Singh on whose death his legal representatives, the present plaintiffs, were brought on record vide order dated 01.08.2013, had filed the present suit for grant of a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.07.2011 (Ext.PW.1/A) against the defendants, out of whom, defendant No.2, State Bank of Patiala was deleted vide order dated 22.07.2013, leaving defendant No.1 as the sole defendant, with respect to the suit property (land and hotel), comprised in Khewat No.407, Khatauni No.628, Khasra No.2481/122, measuring 3843 00 square decimeters, situate at Upmohal Krishna Nagar, Mauza Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., for a sum of Rs.43,00,000/ (rupees forty three lac only). As per averments set up in the plaint, . two sums of Rs.20,00,000/ (rupees twenty lac only) and Rs.14,00,000/ (rupees fourteen lac only) , totaling Rs.34,00,000/ (rupees thirty four lac only), were paid as earnest money and a further sum of of Rs.9,50,000/ (rupees nine lac and fifty thousand only) is stated to have been paid to the deleted defendant No.2, State Bank of Patiala, Gagret by the original plaintiff to liquidate the outstanding amount of loan raised by defendant No.1, Sh. Kulwant Singh. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.43,50,000/ (rupees forty three lac and fifty thousand only) stood already paid by the original plaintiff, Sh. Tajinder Singh against the agreed sum of Rs.43,00,000/ (rupees forty three lac only).

(2.) ON being served and failure to put in appearance, defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.04.2013.

(3.) FROM the ex parte oral and documentary evidence led on behalf of the plaintiffs, which remains totally unrebutted, it is made out that whereas the original plaintiff and after his death, the present plaintiffs were and are even now ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement of sale dated 11.07.2011, Ext.PW.1/A, the defendant has utterly failed to perform his part of the said agreement even despite receipt of a sum of Rs.43,50,000/ (rupees forty three lac fifty thousand only), which is more than the entire sale consideration of Rs.43,00,000/ (rupees forty three lac only) by Rs.50,000/ (rupees fifty thousand only) in the manner stated in the plaint and deposed by plaintiff No.3, Sh. Kirandeep Singh, while appearing as PW 1. of