HITESH THAKUR Vs. REETA TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 19/11/2022, passed by the learned Additional District JudgeIII, Kangra at Dharamshala, camp at Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.2-P/XIII/2021, titled Hitesh Thakur Versus Reeta Tandon & another, whereby the appeal filed by defendant No.2 (appellant herein) was dismissed and the judgment and decree dtd. 3/1/2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No.827/2013 was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) filed a suit for specific performance of contract dtd. 1/3/2011 and in the alternative for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 Sikru Ram (predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.2 herein) to refund double amount i.e. Rs.4,60,000.00 of the amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000.00 which he received at the time of agreement and Rs.30,000.00 which he received thereafter alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and also for declaration declaring sale/conveyance deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 29/5/2014 bearing registration No.1253/2015 of the suit land and mutation No.509 attested on the basis of same, to be wrong, null and void by setting aside the sale deed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 alongwith other co-sharers was owner of land comprised in Khata No.35, Khatauni No.84 min, Khasra Nos.504, 507 & 508, situated in Mohal Jandera, Mauza Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, HP as per Jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 and out of which, he agreed to sell 384/14959 shares i.e. land measuring 0/3/84 hectares to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000.00, qua which an agreement was executed on 1/3/2011. Out of the total sale consideration, defendant No.1 received a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 as advance money and as per the agreement, 13 meters of road front covering 384 square meters on back side of the road was agreed to be sold and defendant No.1 had also agreed to remove malwa of his old house before executing the sale deed, but neither he removed the same, nor executed the sale deed and further demanded a sum of Rs.30,000.00 and extended time for executing the sale deed. The plaintiff further averred that he was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement, but defendant No.1 refused to perform his part of the agreement, however, he had executed a sale deed of the suit land i.e. 384/14959 shares in favour of defendant No.2 in violation of the order dtd. 24/11/2022 passed by the learned trial Court in CMA No.56/11.