TEJA SINGH Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Procedure, has been preferred by the defendant No. 3 -appellant against judgment and decree dated 1.12.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 26/2000, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1999 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 198 of 1992.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 Shri Bhup Singh alias Bhupal Singh was the owner in possession of the suit land/property as per detail given below: -

(3.) IT was further averred that defendant No. 1 Shri Bhup Singh alias Bhupal Singh, through his general attorney, defendant No. 2 entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/ - vide agreement to sell dated 19.4.1992. At that time, a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - was paid to defendant No. 1 through his general attorney towards part satisfaction of the sale consideration as earnest money and vide the aforesaid agreement to sell, defendant No. 1 had agreed to transfer the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of sale deed to be executed on or before 25.6.1992 on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/ - after deduction of the subsisting amount of mortgage with respect to the suit land comprising in khata No. 94. He was through -out ready and willing to perform his part of contract and is still ready to perform his party of contract. On 24.6.1992, he approached Kamal Singh, defendant No. 2 and asked him to execute the aforesaid sale deed as per agreement and at that time, he had told that he would come for execution and registration of the required sale deed on 25.6.1992. On his such representation/assurance, plaintiff went to the office of the Sub Registrar, Banjar alongwith the aforesaid balance consideration and money necessary for the purchase of stamp papers, execution and registration fee etc. but the defendant No. 2 did not reach the office of the Sub Registrar, Banjar. In these circumstances, an affidavit dated 25.6.1992 was also sworn in by the plaintiff in order to prove the factum of his presence in the office of Sub Registrar, Banjar. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and 2 did not perform their part of contract.