The court upheld that non-fulfillment of contractual obligations justified the forfeiture of earnest money, affirming the agreement's explicit terms regarding readiness to perform.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J. (Oral)

The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby decree for specific performance was declined, but refund of earnest money was ordered; and judgment and decree dated 5.3.2019 passed by the ld. 1st Appellate Court, whereby refund of earnest money was set aside; and thus praying for decretal of the suit in toto.

2. By way of this common judgment the 02 aforementioned appeals are being disposed of, as both appeals have arisen out of common impugned judgments of both the Courts below dated 17.08.2015 (trial Court) and 05.03.2019 (1st Appellate Court) and similar facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from RSA-4949-2019.

3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as the plaintiff whereas the respondent as defendant.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for joint possession as owner by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.08.2005 and 19.09.2005 regarding the suit land measuring 16 kanals-4% marlas as described in the head note of the plaint; And suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its agent servants and representative from selling, mortgaging, transferring alienating in any manner the land as described in the second head note of the plaint; And directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee for Rs.17,97,65,600/- after the adjustment of Rs.23,96,000/- given as earnest money to the defendant. The plaintiff had exhibited his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract.

5. The facts as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant entered into agreement on 03.08.2005 for sale of joint land measuring 16 kanals 4% marlas as fully described in the head note of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of village Aujla Hadhbast No 182, Tehsil Kharar Distt. SAS Nagar. The rate as settled between plaintiff and the defendant initially was Rs. 93,50,000 per acre. In total six sale deeds were agreed to be executed with regard to this land. It was agreed between the parties that plaintiff would obtain the requisite permission from PUDA/Town Planner Department and for the purpose Defendant would furnish a consent deed in favour of plaintiff, for enabling plaintiff to apply to PUDA/Town Planner Department for obtaining requisite permission with respect to this land for building an infrastructure with respect to developing residential colony. A total amount of Rs. 23,96,000/- was paid by plaintiff towards the earnest money. The total land agreed to be sold was equally divided into six parts in order to affect six sale deeds at an interval of four months each. Subsequently a fresh agreement dated 19.9.2005 was executed between defendant and plaintiff through which, the basic terms and conditions as incorporated in the earlier agreement to sell dated 3.8.2005 were retained. However, substitution in the agreement dated 19.9.2005 were made and the rate of land was mutually agreed at Rs. 88,50,000 per acre, as it came to notice that this land agreed to be sold through earlier agreement to sell dated 3.8.2005, was not within the Municipal Limit of Municipal Council, Kharar. The date for effecting the first registered sale deed would be within a period of four months, from the date the Govt. issues necessary notification for bringing the land within the Municipal of Municipal Council, Kharar. The rest of the terms and conditions of earlier agreement to sell d