Time is not generally considered the essence of contracts for the sale of immovable property; however, specific circumstances may necessitate its strict enforcement. A valid agreement can only be modified by mutual consent, not unilaterally through legal notices.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Plaintiff­Darshan Singh has filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 22.10.2005, against the defendant, with regard the land measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas, comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.59/65, Khasra No.173/105, as per Jamabandi for the years 2001­2002, situated in Mauza Gogharwal, Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’).

2. In addition to this, the plaintiff has sought the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, alienating or encumbering and changing the nature of the suit land.

3. The suit has been filed on the ground that defendant had entered into the agreement with the plaintiff, who is agriculturist, regarding the sale of the suit land for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/­ per bigha, for a total consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/­.

4. The terms and conditions of the agreement were reduced into writing on 22.10.2005 and, at that time, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/­, as earnest money. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ on 22.4.2006 and the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.82,00,000/­, was to be paid on or before 22.08.2006.

5. As per those terms and conditions, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­, to the defendant on 22.4.2006 and this fact was documented, in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Dharam Pal and Negi Ram. On 22.8.2006, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ and the execution and registration of sale deed was extended up to 22.2.2007.

6. On 27.5.2006, the defendant got issued, a legal notice and thereafter, another notice on 26.8.2006, which was duly replied by the plaintiff on 27.9.2006, by mentioning that the intention of the defendant has become dishonest, as, he had already received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/­, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/­ and the last date of execution of the sale deed has been extended upto 22.2.2007.

7. A request has also been made to the defendant, in the notice­cum­reply, dated 27.9.2006, to remain present on 22.2.2007, to execute and register the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance sale consideration. The said notice­cum­reply, has been replied, by the defendant, through his counsel, in which, it has been admitted that the defendant had received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/­, as earnest money. However, remaining Rs.10,00,000/­, which were paid by the plaintiff and duly acknowledged by the defendant, on 22.4.2006 and 22.8.2006, were disputed.

8. It is the further case of the plaintiff that plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nalagarh, however, the said suit was dismissed, as withdrawn on 15.2.2007, as, the suit for specific performance and injunction, was to be filed, in the High Court, being the value of the property more than one crore.

9. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, with the balance sale consideration, remained present on 22.02.2007, and was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registere