KULDEEP SINGH Vs. HARNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, whereby the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Anoopgarh has been affirmed.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff - respondent Harnam Kaur filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant -defendant Kuldeep Singh regarding land ad measuring 4.12 Bigha, situated at Chak 7 L.M.(A), Murrba No.278/476, Anoopgarh with the averments that the land was in the khatedari of appellant; the appellant proposed sale of the said land to the plaintiff's husband and father of defendants No.2 to 10 @ Rs.7,500/ - per bigha on 1.3.1985; a agreement to sale was executed on the same date and a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was paid to Kuldeep Singh; in part performance of the agreement, the defendant No.1 handed over the vacant possession of the land alongwith water on the same date; since then till May, 1993 Santa Singh remained in possession and from 5.5.1993 when Santa Singh died, the plaintiff was in possession of the land and was cultivating the same; the agreement was dated 1.3.1985, however, the plaintiff's husband executed a will in plaintiff's favour on 18.7.1992 and therefore, she is in possession based on the will; the terms and conditions of the agreement were indicated in the agreement dated 1.3.1985, whereby the balance consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, the defendant No.1 would get the sale permission and after getting the permission would give a notice in writing and the same would be registered within one month, expenses of registration would be of the vendee, consequence of default on part of vendor and vendee were also indicated; it was claimed that Santa Singh requested defendant No.1 to seek permission for sale on several occasions but he avoided; the plaintiff's husband was always ready to get sale registered, now the plaintiff was willing to give the balance consideration and to perform her part of the contract; it was claimed that on account of passage of time, the defendant No.1 demanded present market price and was threatening dispossession and has refused to execute sale deed on 28.1.1994, ultimately, it was prayed that a decree for specific performance be passed in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 10.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed ten issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, six witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were examined.