NIRMAL SINGH Vs. RANDHIR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Defendants appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 28 -12 -1990 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which a decree for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of agreement of sale was passed in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent.

(2.) On 7 -8 -1989, an agreement of sale was entered into between the parties by which defendant agreed to part with the property described in revenue records as four biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 255, entered at Khewat No. 34, Khatauni No. 325 situated in mauza Sanjauli, Tehsii and District, Shimla alongwith the building standing thereupon for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was received by way of earnest money and it was stipulated that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,000 would be paid by the plaintiff and received by the Defendant at the time of registration of sale deed. Under the belief that the property to be conveyed by defendant to the plaintiff was land as defined in the explanation to section 118. of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was also stipulated that since the plaintiff was not an agriculturist, an application will be moved by him seeking permission of the State Government for the purchase of the property and within two months from the date of receipt of the permission, sale deed was agreed to be executed by the defendant conveying his rights, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit was instituted on 19 -7 -1990 by the plaintiff seeking decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement stating that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and was still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in pursuance to the agreement for which purpose he had also applied to the State Government seeking permission under section 118 of the Act, but obtaining of the permission was pot a bar in obtaining relief against the Defendant since defendant had, despite requests, failed to execute the sale deed in his favour.