Kamaluddin and others

Appellants

Versus

Sohrab and others

Respondents

Akbar and another

Appellants

Versus

Sohrab and others

Respondents

Date of decision: 28^th November, 2013

! "#$$

1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed

to see the judgment?

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7.

$$%

This judgment shall dispose of two appeals viz. (1) RSA

No.1226 of 2012 titled as 8Kamaluddin and others v. Sohrab and others9

and (2) RSA No.1235 of 2012 titled as 8Akbar and another v. Sohrab

and others9 as similar substantial questions of law have been raised on

similar grounds and facts in both the appeals. However, for brevity, the

facts are being taken from RSA No.1226 of 2012.

Singh Rattan Pal

2013.12.05 17:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Punjab & Haryana High Court

2

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific

performance, inter;alia alleging that defendant No.1;Ashru had entered

into an agreement to sell in respect of the land measuring 33 Kanals 11

Marlas, as detailed in the plaint, on 16.04.2004 for a total sale

consideration of 12,58,125 and received a sum of 1,50,000 as

earnest money. The remaining sale consideration was agreed to be

paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or

before 16.06.2004 at their expenses. The suit land was agreed to be

sold along with existing room attached with tubewell, electricity

connection, bore and all other rights attached with the land and

appurtenant thereto. It was further alleged that plaintiffs No.1 and 2

agreed to purchase 1/4^th and 3/8^th share respectively whereas plaintiff

No.4 agreed to purchase the remaining 1/8^th share in the land. It was

further averred that the plaintiffs had the option to purchase the land in

their own names or in the names of their nominees. Defendant No.1

was in actual cultivating possession of the suit land at the time of

agreement and he delivered the physical possession to them. It was

further alleged that the plaintiffs were always and were still ready and

willing to perform their part of the contract in all respects. They had

approached defendant No.1 after two weeks of execution of the

agreement that they were having sufficient funds for payment of

balance sale consideration and he should execute the sale deed and

get the same registered and for the said purpose 20^th May was fixed,

on which date the plaintiffs were present before the Sub;Registrar,

Tauru for getting the sale deed executed and registered along with the

Singh Rattan Pal

2013.12.05 17:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Punjab & Haryana High Court

3

balance sale consideration. They also purchased the stamp papers

through Yamin son of plaintiff No.1 but defendant No.1 did not turn up

and refused to execute the sale deed. It was further submitted that the

plaintiffs again approached defendant No.1 and requested him to

execute the sale deed as they tendered the balance sale consideration

and asked defendant No.1 to accompany them to the office of Sub;

Registrar with a view to execute the sale deed and to accept the

balance sale consideration before the Sub;Registrar whereupon he

stated that a civil suit regarding title of the suit land had already been

filed against him by Smt. Salma alleging herself to be the adopted

daughter of Sedhu, which was pending in the Court of Additional Civil

Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nuh, wherein she was gra