MAHESH GROVER,J - (1.) IN this Regular Second Appeal initiated at the behest of the defendant, challenge has been made to the judgment of the learned first appellate court dated 31.1.1990 vide which the judgment of the learned trial court dated 2.9.1987 has been reversed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Mohan Singh (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance against the appellant and one Charan Kaur, the vendor and executor of the alleged agreement to sell land measuring 16 kanals and 18 marlas in favour of respondent No. 1. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that the suit land was jointly owned by one Hazara Singh, Tara Singh and Shangara Singh sons of Jagat Singh in equal shares. The suit land fell to the share of Tara Singh after the family partition between the brothers aforementioned. Charan Kaur (respondent No. 2 herein) had inherited the share of Tara Singh after his death. On 28.1.1986 she executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 to sell the suit land in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by way of earnest money and it was agreed that the sale would be finally executed by 5th of Har, 1986 (which date is equivalent to 19.6.1986). It was also stipulated in the agreement that in the event of the failure to execute the sale deed the respondent No. 2 Charan Kaur would pay damages to the respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had also made an alternative prayer for Rs. 20,000/- as damages and went on to plead that on the stipulated date he had remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ajnala and waited for respondent No. 2 but she failed to turn up to perform her part of the agreement. The respondent No. 1 had got his presence marked in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ajnala and since he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement he had accordingly approached the respondent No. 2 on 18.7.1986 and tendered the balance sale price of Rs. 20,000/- which she refused to accept and pleaded that the sale had already been executed on 5.6.1986 in favour of the appellant under duress as she had been kidnapped by him and no sale consideration was ever paid to her by the appellant.
(3.) IN this backdrop, a three-fold prayer was made by the respondent No. 1 to say that the possession of the suit land be given to him after specific performance of the aforesaid agreement dated 28.1.1986; alternatively the damages be given to him and the sale deed dated 5.6.1986 be declared null and void, being without any consideration and against law.;