DILSUKH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dt.13.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2 Sikar in Civil Regular Suit No.(104/2009) 93/2009 decreeing a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendants with the assertion that defendants agreed to sell their agricultural land bearing khasra No.27 Ad-measuring 1.67 hectare situated at Gram Ghassu Ka Bas Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land") to the plaintiffs under an oral contract on 17.03.2009 for a consideration of Rs.9,90,000/- (Nine Lac Ninety Thousand) in presence of witnesses Ranjeet Singh and Devi Singh. It was claimed that payment was to be made to the defendants till 20.04.2009 upon which the defendants were to execute and register the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. It was asserted that suit land along with other lands of the defendants was mortgaged with Bank of Baroda branch at Laxmangarh, District Sikar and as such registration of sale deed was not possible, hence, it was agreed that the defendants would get the suit land freed from mortgage. It was asserted that in furtherance of the agreement, suit land was got freed from mortgage by defendants on 31.03.2009 and entry to this effect was made in the revenue records and a certified copy of Jamabandi was given to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1. It was further claimed that on 13.04.2009 upon the plaintiffs urging to the defendant to receive the sale price and register the sale deed, the defendants assured to attend the Sub-Registrar Office Laxmangarh on 15.04.2009 and do the needful. It was further asserted that on 15.04.2009, plaintiffs reached the Sub-Registrar Office along with the entire sale price with witnesses Ranjeet Singh & Suresh, whereupon the defendant No.4, Surendra Kumar purchased stamp papers of Rs.79,200/- in the name of defendants, the payment of which was made by the plaintiffs. It was further claimed that the draft of sale deed was given to deed writer Narottam Baid to be engrossed on the stamp paper and defendant No.4 provided the relevant Photograph, Identity Proofs and relevant documents to the plaintiffs. It was further asserted that defendants No.3 to 5 put their signature on the original sale deed engrossed on stamp paper along with two photocopies of the same as also upon the declaration deed, cheque list in front of witnesses Ranjeet Singh & Suresh Kumar and a sum of Rs.90,000/- was received in cash by defendant No.4 and residual sale consideration was received as under:-

(3.) It was also asserted that after receipt of such cheque and cash, defendant Nos. 3 to 5 stated that defendant No.1 & 2 would not be able to execute the sale deed on that date and hence sale deed was not registered on such date. It was claimed that thereafter the plaintiffs contacted defendants to get the sale deed registered but on one pretext or other, they avoided the same and on 20.04.2009 defendant No.1 returned all the cheques and assured to execute the sale deed after consulting family members whereupon the plaintiff on 18.06.2009, served a registered notice upon the defendant calling upon to get the sale deed registered which was not responded but the defendants started making attempt to sell the "suit land", to third party, constrained by which suit for specific performance and permanent injunction was filed.