PREM SINGH Vs. MANGU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recoded by both the Courts below. It has been concurrently found that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.12.1996 Ex.P1. Categorical findings have been recorded by both the Courts below holding that the defendant- appellant had executed the agreement to sell in respect of the suit land.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 263/T/02 dated 3.2.1999 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.12.1996 executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the suit land. Further prayer was made for issuance of directions to defendant-appellant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent to get the same registered on payment of the balance sale consideration and other necessary expenses. The averments made in the plaint shows that Rs. 1,50,00/- per killa was the rate settled in respect of 6 bighas and 5 Biswas of land. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 5.11.1998 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on the receipt of balance sale consideration plus registration charges. The plaintiff-respondent was present before the Sub-Registrar Dudhan Sadhan on 5.11.1998 alongwith the balance sale consideration and adequate amount for purchase of stamp papers plus other expenses. However the defendant-appellant failed to turn up to perform his part of the agreement. It is further asserted that the plaintiff-respondent was still willing and ready to perform his part of the contract on the date of filing the suit. A registered notice through the counsel was issued which contained some clerical mistakes. However, the same were corrected by sending another notice requesting the defendant- appellant to execute the sale deed.

(3.) ON Issue Nos. 2 and 3 it was held by the trial Court that the defendant- appellant has failed to prove as to how the agreement to sell was false, frivolous and fabricated and all the above issues were decided against him. On issue No. 4, no evidence having been led by the plaintiff-appellant the same was decided against him. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed for specific performance of agreement.