L.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) CM No. 1756.C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 24 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No.1757.C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 619 of 2010 Hardev Singh etc. legal representatives of Chand Singh alias Shri Chand original defendant since deceased have knocked at the door of this Court by way of instant second appeal, having failed in both the courts below.
(2.) RESPONDENT plaintiff Jarnail Singh filed suit against defendant Chand Singh alias Shri Chand alleging that the defendant vide agreement dated 1.10.1997 agreed to sell suit land measuring 22 kanals 4 marlas to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs 1,50,000/- pere acre and received Rs 4,06,250/- as earnest money. Possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plaintiff. Sale deed was agreed to be executed upto 31.12.1998. Accordingly, on 31.12.1998, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar along with requisite amount to get the sale deed executed and registered but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff has always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but defendant committed breach thereof. Accordingly, plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1.10.1997 and in the alternative, sought recovery of earnest money of Rs 4,06,250/- along with interest thereon.
(3.) THE defendant broadly controverted the plaint allegations. It was denied that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and received any earnest money and executed any agreement. It was also pleaded that defendant himself was not in possession of the suit land and therefore, question of delivering possession thereof to the plaintiff did not arise. THE impugned agreement is forged and fabricated. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Budhlada vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the impugned agreement. First appeal preferred by Hardev Singh one of the six legal representatives of the original defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2008. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of the defendant have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.;