The court emphasized the necessity for sufficient evidence in proving agreements and the adherence to statutory limitation timelines.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 18.05.2015, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the learned Courts below were in patent error in non-suiting the plaintiff as it failed to take into account the fact that the Agreement stood proven in accordance with law. Execution of the Agreement is proved by the statement of plaintiff Jasbir Kaur and attesting witness Sant Singh/Lambardar, of the Agreement who stated that the rate of land to be sold was Rs.78000/- per acre but inadvertently, it was written as Rs.7,80,000/-. It is submitted that even readiness and willingness of the appellant/plaintiff to execute the Sale Deed was proved by cogent evidence led by the plaintiff. It is contended that in these circumstances, there was no cause or occasion for the Courts below to dismiss the Civil Suit.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff had produced the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 wherein in Column 12, it is noted that vide rapat No.317 dated 18.04.2002, the land in question was under attachment. It is pointed out that the plaintiff had categorically given the date of release of land from attachment dated 29.11.2010. It is contended that therefore, limitation would commence from 29.11.2010. Accordingly, ld. Courts below are in error in dismissing the suit on grounds of limitation.

4. It is further argued that as per the terms of Agreement, Sale Deed was to be executed within one month of the Release Order of the land. The plaintiff had issued notice dated 24.12.2010 as per which date of execution of Sale Deed was given as 04.01.2011. The plaintiff had served another notice dated 13.01.2011 upon the defendants requiring them to execute the Sale Deed on 21.01.2011. However, to no avail. Both the ld. lower Court below while discussing the law and the point dismissed the suit and arguments were not met with. As per the allegations the land was released on 29.11.2010 and the Sale Deed was to be executed within one month of the release order of the land. However, despite notices issued by the plaintiff, same deed was not executed. Then the suit was filed within three years and if it is taken that the land was released on 29.11.2010 then the suit is within the period of limitation i.e. 3 years: The period of limitation is to be taken 3 years from the date of refusal by the defendants after serving the notice given by the plaintiff. Admittedly the defendants were given the notice by the plaintiff and defendants did not execute the Sale Deed. The defendants have not led any evidence to show that the land was released from attachment earlier to 29.11.2010. Learned counsel accordingly prays for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.

7. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that defendants No.1 to 3 being owners in possession of the suit property had executed an Agreement to Sell dated 18.05.2005 in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.7.80 lacs per acre. The Agreement was executed on behalf of the defendant No.2 by defendant No.3 being Power of Attorney holder. Inadvertently, in the Agreement to Sell, total price of the suit property was mentioned as Rs.7,80,000/-; and total sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.13,16,250/-. As per the plaint, the defendants No.1 and 3 had received Rs.2 lakh as earnest money at the time of execution of Agreement itself in the presence of attesting witness Sant Singh and Sukhj