HARNAM SINGH Vs. PURBI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of the above appeal and the connected cross objections.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present appeal and the cross objections are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract dated September 14, 1984 by executing a sale deed qua 8/45 share in land comprising Khata No. 6, Khatoni Nos. 12, 13, Khasra Nos. 82 min, measuring 0-10-76, Khata No. 14 min, Khatoni No. 29, Khasra Nos. 90, 395, 397, measuring 0-47-68, total area 0-58-44, more specifically detailed in the Jamabandi for the year 1980-81, situate in Mohal Kanda, Mauza Thana Bargran, Sub-Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra (hereafter referred to as the 'suit land'), for Rs. 22,225/- and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 15,750/-, i.e. Rs. 10,500/- paid as earnest money and Rs. 5,250/- as damages/interest thereon for the period from September 14, 1984 to July 14, 1985.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that respondent/defendant Purbi Devi (here-after referred to as 'defendant No. 1') owns that suit land, she entered into an agreement dated September 14, 1984 with the plaintiffs thereby agreeing to sell the land in suit to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per Kanal for a total consideration of Rs. 22,225/- and also agreed to execute the sale deed on or before July 31, 1985. An earnest money in the sum of Rs. 10,500/- was received by her on September 14, 1984 the day when the agreement was executed with the condition that if she failed to execute the sale deed within the specific time, she would return the said earnest money with interest at the rate of 5% per month. On the other hand, the plaintiffs stipulated that if they failed to get the execution of the sale deed made by July 31, 1985, the earnest money paid would stand forfeited. After the execution of the said agreement, defendant No. 1 Purbi Devi firstly approached defendant/respondent No. 2 (here-after referred to as 'defendant No. 2') for selling the suit land. When the plaintiffs came to know about it, they served the defendants No. 1 and 2 with a notice dated March 14, 1985 requiring them to desist from effecting the sale or any other transfer of the suit land. The said notice was not replied to. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 agreed to execute the sale deed on June 26, 1985 at Kangra when the plaintiffs waited for her at Kangra but she did not turn up, hence another notice was served on defendant No. 1 reminding her all the instructions for the materialisation of the sale as per the stipulation in the agreement. This notice was replied by defendant No. 1 whereby she denied the execution of the agreement and refused to comply with the conditions thereof. Thereafter defendant No. 1 negotiated the sale of the suit land with defendant No. 2 and defendant/respondent Barraro Ram (here-after referred to as 'defendant No. 3') with dishonest and mala fide intention and to defeat the valuable rights of the plaintiffs. It is further claimed that ever-since the execution of the agreement, the plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and are still willing to do so. However, the defendant No. 1 has refused to perform her part of the contract, hence the suit.