- (1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2011, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala has been dismissed.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.
(3.) The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.11.1999 or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest. As per the averments in the plaint defendant No.1 Gurdeep Kaur was the owner in possession of the land measuring 24 Kanal detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint. She entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.11.1999 of said land to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the total sale price. The stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was 12.11.2001. It is further pleaded that vide endorsement dated 08.11.2001, the plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- as further earnest money to defendant No.1 and the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 11.11.2002. The plaintiff was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract along with the balance sale consideration and expenses. On 11.11.2002, he had gone to house of defendant No.1 and tendered the amount before her and asked her to get the sale deed executed in terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further pleaded that after the execution of agreement dated 17.11.1999, defendant No.1 Gurdeep Kaur illegally obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from defendant No.2-Bank by mortgaging the aforesaid land. She had been making promise to repay the mortgaged amount to defendant No.2 and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after getting the land redeemed, but she failed to get the land redeemed. The plaintiff also remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar throughout the day fixed for execution of the sale deed but defendant No.1 did not turn up. Hence the suit.;