- (1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal filed by appellants (defendants no. 2 to 4 in the suit) against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat, has been dismissed.
(2.) Respondents-Plaintiffs has filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.05.2007. She also sought the decree for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of appellants-defendants no. 2 to 4 dated 15.10.2007 is illegal, null and void. A decree for permanent injunction was also prayed for restraining the appellants from alienating the suit land or changing the nature thereof in any manner.
(3.) As per averments in the plaint, defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit land measuring 14 Kanals 1 Marla situated in the revenue estate of village Risalu for a sale consideration of Rs. 12 lacs in lump sum vide agreement to sell dated 02.05.2007. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell defendant no.1 had agreed to get the land redeemed from the mortgage and thereafter to get the sale deed executed and registered on or before 05.10.2007. On 05.10.2007, plaintiff came present in the office of Sub Registrar, Panipat along with remaining sale consideration and other expenses. But, defendant no.1 did not turned up. When the plaintiff contacted him on 06.10.2007, he assured to get the sale deed executed on 08.10.2007. Plaintiff again remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Panipat on 08.10.2007, but defendant no. 1 again did not turned up. Thereafter, she served the legal notice but of no avail. Plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform her part of agreement. Hence the suit.;