L.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) DEFENDANTS Ram Sarup and Narsi Ram, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal.
(2.) RESPONDENTS Neeraj Sharma etc. filed suit against Defendants -Appellants for possession of the suit land measuring 32 kanals by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.04.2006. The Plaintiffs alleged Defendants agreed to sell the suit land to the Plaintiffs @ Rs. 5.25 lacs per acre and received Rs. 4 lacs as earnest money and executed impugned agreement dated 10.04.2006. Sale deed was to be executed up to 30.11.2006. The Plaintiffs alleged that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but Defendants committed breach thereof. Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants telephonically prior to 30.11.2006, but the Defendants expressed their inability to execute the sale deed on 30.11.2006. However, still the Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants on 30.11.2006 and even thereafter, to execute the sale deed. The Plaintiffs served notice dated 27.02.2007 on the Defendants requiring them to execute the sale deed, but the Defendants did not do the needful, although Plaintiffs remained present for getting the sale deed executed in terms of agreement and notice. Plaintiffs again served notice dated 16.05.2007 on the Defendants requiring them to execute the sale deed, but to no effect, necessitating the filing of the suit. Defendants admitted having agreed to sell the suit land to the Plaintiffs and having received Rs. 4 lacs as earnest money and having executed the impugned agreement. Defendants, however, broadly controverter the other plaint averments. It was denied that Plaintiffs have ever been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It was also denied that Defendants telephonically expressed their inability to execute the sale deed on 30.11.2006 and requested for postponement of the execution of the sale deed. Defendants pleaded that on 30.11.2006 the Plaintiffs did not turn up to the office of Sub Registrar with remaining sale consideration for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, although the Defendants remained present there to do the needful. It was further denied that even after 30.11.2006, Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants for execution of the sale deed or served any legal notice. Various other pleas were also raised.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010, dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2011, and thereby, suit filed by the Plaintiffs stand decreed. Feeling aggrieved, Defendants have preferred the instant second appeal.;