ROHIT @ ROHIN AND ORS Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants, who aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below, whereby they have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.6, 00, 000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, i.e. 3.7.2010 till its realization, have preferred the instant appeal. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 8.8.2006 and for execution of the sale deed qua the land measuring 263.12 sq. mts. being 1/5th share in the land comprised of Khewat/Khatauni No.172/547, 548 Khasra No. 1552 (1223-72) , 1558 (2-46) , 2427 (45-75) , 2219/1 (5-50) , 2428 (38-17) measuring 1365/60 sq. mts. situated at Muhal Shatni Bihar, Patwar Circle Sanjauli, Tehsil and District Shimla. Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land, selling, alienating and encumbering the same and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.6, 00, 000/- being double of the earnest money along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 8.8.2006 till realization thereof.

(3.) The plaintiff claimed that late Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, vide agreement dated 8.8.2006 had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.4, 00, 000/-. Out of total consideration amount, she paid a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000/-to him as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.1, 00, 000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution of registration of the sale deed on or before 31.7.2009, however, Kuldeep Kumar died before the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff then requested the defendants being the legal heirs of Kuldeep Kumar to execute and register the sale deed as per agreement dated 8.8.2006. However, they failed to do so and ultimately the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 8.6.2009, but even despite that the defendants refused to execute the sale deed nor refunded the double of the earnest money. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to perform her part of agreement dated 8.8.2006 and was present in the office of Sub-Registrar (Rural) , Shimla, on 31.7.2009, but the defendants did not turn up for execution and registration of the sale deed. Hence, the suit.