- (1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 1.9.2007 whereby their suit for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question was dismissed. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 3.12.2011 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court.
(2.) Baldev Kaur-plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) filed the instant suit for possession of House No. 560, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') by way of specific performance of agreement dated 2.12.1989 (actually executed on 6.12.1989 and wrongly typed as 2.12.1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the agreement') entered into between her and defendant-Teja Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) for the sale of the suit property.
(3.) As per the averments, Smt. Baldev Kaur entered into an agreement dated 2.12.1989 with defendant-Teja Singh (now represented by his LRs i.e respondents) for a sum of Rs. 13,25,000/-. It is the case of the appellants that said agreement was entered into between Baldev Kaur at Bangkok and the defendant had agreed to come to India for execution of the sale deed in the month of May/June, 1990. It is the further case of the appellants that plaintiff-Baldev Kaur always remained ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement for execution of the sale deed but defendant-Teja Singh did not come from Bangkok to Chandigarh to perform his part of the agreement. It is the further case of the appellants that defendant-Teja Singh had written letters dated 24.4.1990, 17.5.1990 and 19.3.1991 expressing his intention to sell the suit property to someone else at a higher price. He always put off the matter of the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other as and when he was called to execute the sale deed. He was sent a telegram as well as the registered AD notice. The defendant-respondent was also approached by the plaintiff through one Sardara Singh who vide letter dated 11.7.1992 informed the plaintiff about the intention of the defendant-Teja Singh to sell the suit property to someone else at a higher price and thus, the plaintiff-appellant again requested the defendant-respondent vide telegram dated 12.8.1992 to reach the office of Sub Registrar on 26.8.1992 for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff waited for the defendant-Teja Singh along with the necessary expenses and the balance sale consideration in the office of Sub Registrar but he did not come on that day. Thus, in these circumstances necessity arose to file the instant suit.;