L. N. MITTAL - (1.) CM No.4721-C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.4722-C of 2012
(2.) THE application is allowed and Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case Defendants Sukhbir Kaur etc. have filed this second appeal. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Krishan Avtar against defendants/appellants for possession of the suit land measuring 13 kanals 3 marlas by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.04.2006. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed to sell 14 kanals 2 marlas RSA NO.1718 OF 2012 (O&M) -2- land to the plaintiff @ ` 6,80,000/- per acre and received `4,00,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 20.04.2006. However, defendants have been shown to be owners to the extent of 13 kanals 3 marlas land in jamabandi and the suit has accordingly been filed for 13 kanals 3 marlas land. Sale deed was agreed to be executed up to 31.12.2007. The plaintiff accordingly remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 31.12.2007 alongwith requisite amount to get the sale deed executed and registered in terms of the agreement, but the defendants did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement. The plaintiff alleged that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, plaintiff sought possession of the suit land by specific performance of the agreement alongwith other consequential reliefs.
(3.) THE defendants broadly controverted the plaint averments. THE defendants denied execution of impugned agreement as well as receipt of earnest money. THE defendants pleaded that on 21.04.2006, the plaintiff asked defendants No.2 and 3 to bring defendants No.1 and 4 also to attest the sale deed as witnesses so that defendants No.1 and 4 as cosharers may not object to the sale deed to be executed by defendants No.2 and 3. Accordingly defendants No.2 and 3 executed sale deed dated 21.04.2006 and at that time, the plaintiff in clever manner also obtained thumb impressions of defendants No.1 and 4 along with defendants No.2 and 3 on some stamp papers and the same were signed under the impression of being part of the sale deed dated 21.04.2006.;