The appellant's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement led to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - CM-4096-C-2022

1. Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. CM stands disposed of.

CM-4097-C-2022

1. Application for exemption from filing court fees in the present appeal.

2. No ground is made out to exempt the applicant/ appellant from filing the Court fee.

3. Dismissed.

Main case

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to judgment and decree dated 09.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, thereby modifying the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar.

2. The facts of the case are that based on an agreement to sell dated 04.01.2006, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance regarding land measuring 49 bighas 1 biswas as detailed in the plaint and situated within the area of village Purkhali, Tehsil and District Ropar. The agreement of sale was between the appellantplaintiff and respondent No.1/defendant No.1. As per the plaint, the land was agreed to be purchased at the rate of Rs.16.25 lakhs per acre, against which, a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs was paid as earnest money as on the date of agreement and another sum of Rs. 10.50 lakhs was paid on 18.04.2006. It was pleaded that at the time of execution of agreement, respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 had shown power of attorney as well as an agreement to sell having been got executed from the original owners i.e. respondent No. 2 to 4, however, later it came to the notice of appellant-plaintiff that the original owners i.e. respondent No.2 to 4 sold the suit land vide sale deed dated 17.07.2007 in favour of respondents No. 7 and 8 through their attorneys i.e. respondent No. 5 and 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, appellant-plaintiff prayed for grant of decree for possession by way of specific performance based on the agreement to sell dated 04.01.2006, besides even seeking declaration as regards the sale deed dated 17.07.2007 to be null and void. In the alternate, appellant-plaintiff also prayed for refund of double of the earnest money i.e. Rs. 1.10 crores as damages.

3. Upon notice, respondents filed their separate sets of written statements. Respondents No.1 and 2 to 4 admitted the execution of agreement to sell dated 10.12.2005 between themselves regarding the property in question alongwith assignment of rights therein, with 15.05.2006 being the target date. Besides it, respondent No.1 admitted the execution of agreement to sell dated 04.01.2006 with appellant, though inter alia submitted that in fact a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was given as the earnest money and 10.05.2006 was the target date of the extention on which,, appellant did not come forward to execute the sale deed showing that he was neither ready nor willing to perform his part of agreement in question.

4. Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2014 recorded a finding in favour of appellant-plaintiff as regards the execution of agreement to sell dated 04.01.2006 along with payment of Rs.30 lakhs as earnest money. The trial Court further recorded that since the agreement in question dated 04.01.2006 was never executed in favour of appellantplaintiff by the original owners i.e. respondent No. 2 to 4 and neither they were party to it nor even signatory to same, as such, the relief of possession by way of specific performance could not be granted. However, the trial Court passed a decree for refund of double of the earnest money along with interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum in favour of appellant-plaintiff by recording that respondent No.1 being not the owner could not challenge readiness and willingness on the part of appellant.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, respondent No. 1/defendant No.1 filed first appeal before the Court of Learned Additional Judge