The court ruled that defendants cannot sell land they do not own and upheld the validity of the agreement for the remaining land.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been filed by appellants/defendants No.1 to 3 against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below vide judgments dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajpura whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1 was decreed for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.11.2004 with regard to land measuring 28 kanals 2 marlas as fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint and judgment dated 24.4.2013 passed by the Court of District Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal filed by defendants No.1 to 3 against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court has been dismissed except for khasra No.21//4/2 (1-8).

2. The brief facts of the case of plaintiff/respondents No.1 are that defendants No.1 to 3 executed an agreement to sell dated 4.11.2004 with regard to land measuring 28 kanal 2 marlas out of total land measuring 45 kanal 9 marlas and 1 kanal 8 marlas as per their share in Khewat/Khatanuni No.108/122 Khasra No.12//25(8-0), Khewat/Khatauni No.683/757, Khasra Nos. 12//16(8-0), 24(8-0), 21//5/2(6-9) 22 kanal 9 marla, Khewat/Khatoni No.1057/1177, Khasra Nos. 11/20(7-18), 21(7-12) and Khewat/Khatoni No.1416/1573, khasra No.21//4/2(1-8) situated within revenue estate of village Manakpur Tehsil Rajpura for valuable consideration of Rs. 4,08,000/- and the proposed vendor received Rs. 3,00,000/- as earnest money and agreed to get registered the sale deed on 15.6.2005. However, on the date fixed i.e. 15.6.2005, respondent No.1 appeared in the office of sub-Registrar office, Rajpura along with balance sale consideration but defendant No.1 to 3 did not turn up for execution and registration of the sale deed. Thereafter a legal notice was served to them to which they sent reply whereby they refused to execute the sale deed on the ground that earnest money was not paid to them. Finally the plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.11.2004.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed written statement whereby they admitted the execution of agreement to sell dated 4.11.2004. However, defendants No.1 to 3 denied the fact regarding receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and pleaded that the agreement to sell was executed with assurance on the part of the plaintiff that the earnest money would be paid on the very next day i.e. 5.11.2004, but even on that day, plaintiff failed to make any payment to defendants No.1 to 3. The other averments of the plaint were denied being wrong. Defendant No.4 land mortgage bank filed separate written statement contesting the claim of the petitioners.

4. On the basis of rival pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.11.2004? OPP

ii. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and still ready and will to perform his part of agreement to sell? OPP

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

iv. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

v. Relief.

5. In order to prove his case, plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and proved execution of agreement to sell dated 4.11.2004 (Annexure P-1) and copy of legal notice Ex.P4 dated 16.6.2005 and reply to said notice Ex.P5 dated 28.6.2005 and Jamabandi Ex.P6 of the suit land for year 2003-04. He also examined PW-1 Surinder Singh attesting witness of the agreement to sell Ex.P1; PW-3 Surinder Kumar Stamp Vendor, who