LAWS(HPH)-2025-5-64

VINAY KUMAR Vs. KISHORI LAL

Decided On May 14, 2025
VINAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
KISHORI LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is defendant No. 2 before the trial Court. The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), for assailing the judgement and decree dtd. 28/7/2022 passed by District Judge, Kangra, in Civil Appeal No. 23-D/XIII/2021 whereby Appeal/Cross Objections filed by Respondent No.2 and the present Appellant, respectively against the Judgement and Decree dtd. 30/9/2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 33/14/2011 was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff had initially filed a civil suit in the trial court under Sec. 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a decree for specific performance of a contract dtd. 3/8/2009 for the sale of land owned by defendant No.1. The suit pertained to Khata No. 224, Khatauni No. 457, Khasra No. 858, measuring 0/18/0 hectares (181/362 share, i.e., 0/9/0 hectares), and Khata No. 225, Khatauni No. 458, Khasra No. 857, measuring 0/59/51 hectares (181/724 share, i.e., 0/14/88 hectares), situated in Mohal Dhann, Mauza and Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh), as per the Jamabandi 2003-04. The total agreed consideration was Rs.13,02,000.00 (at Rs.2,10,000.00 per kanal), with the plaintiff having already paid Rs.6,60,000.00 (including an advance of Rs.4,10,000.00 and Rs.2,50,000.00 on 10/8/2009). The remaining amount (Rs.6,42,000.00) was to be paid within one year (2/8/2010), later extended to 2/8/2012.

(3.) The plaintiff claimed that possession of the land was handed over to him at the time of the agreement (3/8/2009), and he was authorized to construct buildings on the land. His wife was already a co-sharer in the property. Despite repeated requests, defendant No.1 allegedly avoided executing the sale deed. The plaintiff sent a telegraphic notice (1/8/2011) and a registered notice (1/8/2011), asking defendant No.1 to appear at the Tehsil Office, Jawali, on 2/8/2011 for the execution of the sale deed. However, defendant No.1 failed to appear, prompting the plaintiff to execute an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Jawali.