Continuous readiness and willingness from contract execution to judgment essential for specific performance claims, substantiated evidence is necessary to challenge agreements.

Judgment

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

CM-8932-C-2024

Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 4 days in filing the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-2190-2024 (O&M)

Defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2024 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Yamun Nagar, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. Plaintiff (Balbir Singh) instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.11.2015, stated to have been executed by the defendant (Gurnek Singh) in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated at Mauja Jamalpur, Sub-Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land') on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.6,65,625/-. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property was also sought.

3.1 The case set up was that vide agreement to sell dated 24.11.2015, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. The price of the suit land was fixed at Rs.17,00,000 per acre and the total sale consideration was Rs.11,15,625/-. Earnest money of Rs.4.5 lakhs was paid. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on 10.02.2016. However, the said time was extended on 09.02.2016 to 23.03.2016 and subsequently on 21.03.2016, the time was again extended from 23.03.2016 to 25.05.2016.

3.2 It was averred that on 25.05.2016, the plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mustafabad along with the balance consideration and other expenses required for the execution of the sale deed but the defendant did not appear. The plaintiff got his presence marked by way of an affidavit, which was attested by the Executing Magistrate, Mustafabad on 25.05.2016.

3.3 The plaintiff then contacted the defendant and requested him to execute and register the sale deed, but the defendant kept on postponing the matter. Ultimately, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 03.06.2016, calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, but no reply was received nor did the defendant appear for execution of the sale deed.

3.4 It was also averred that the defendant had raised a loan from the bank without disclosing this fact to the plaintiff. It was further averred that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant had failed to perform his part of the contract. Under the circumstances, the suit was filed.

4. The defendant opposed the suit. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, the plaintiff not having approached the Court with clean hands, the suit being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. were raised. Execution of any agreement to sell or receipt of earnest money etc. was denied. It was averred that the main issue was regarding a money transaction and was not for the sale of agricultural land. It was also averred that one Ravinder Singh along with the plaintiff were in the business of