LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-71

OM PARKASH Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

Decided On August 10, 2007
OM PARKASH Appellant
V/S
RAJINDER KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell filed by the plaintiff as well as for recovery of Rs.10, 00,000/- as damages. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.37 and 41 measuring 8-17 and 5-05 bighas, kitas 2, total land measuring 14 bighas 2 biswas situate in Mauza Damuwala as detailed in the plaint. It was alleged that the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of this land for a total consideration of Rs.27,49,500/-, @ Rs.1,95,000/- per bigha on 5.4.2004. Out of the total sale consideration a sum of Rs.4,12,425/- was given to the defendant by the plaintiff vide receipt admitted in the agreement executed in between the parties. The balance amount was Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? agreed to be paid on or before 5.10.2004 and the sale deed was to be executed in between the parties.

(2.) IT was further alleged by the plaintiff that in furtherance of the agreement to sell dated 5.4.2004, the defendant was paid another sum of Rs.1,37,457 on 6.4.2004. Thus, the defendant had received a consideration of Rs.5,49,900/- from the plaintiff towards part performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant had been avoiding to execute the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff presented himself before the Executive Magistrate, Kasauli on 5.4.2004 to have the sale deed executed and registered along with the balance sale consideration. However, the defendant failed to turn up and the plaintiff got his affidavit attested from the Executive Magistrate-cum-Sub Registrar, Kasauli.

(3.) THE defendant refused to take the notice and was proceeded against ex-parte. In his ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself. I have heard Shri K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the plaintiff and have gone through the record of the case.