AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, in a suit filed by them seeking specific performance of a contract entered into by them with the defendant (now represented by their LRs), for the purchase of half a share in land measuring 48 kanals 16 marlas, situated at Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in their favour by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, but on an appeal filed by the defendant (now represented by his LRs), the said judgment was reversed, and the appeal allowed by the learned first appellate court.
(2.) The facts, taken from the judgments of the Courts below, are that the aforesaid agreement was entered into, duly signed by both parties in the presence of witnesses, on 5.12.2005, with Rs.2 lacs settled as the consideration for the purchase of the suit land by the plaintiffs from the defendant. Of the said amount, Rs.1,30,000/- was received by the defendant from the plaintiffs, against a duly signed receipt. The sale deed was to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs by 15.4.2006, on receiving the balance consideration of Rs.70,000/- and in case of failure of the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed and registered by the due date, the amount paid by them as earnest money, would stand forfeited by the defendant. On the other hand, in case the defendant failed to get the sale deed executed and registered, the plaintiffs were at liberty to get it ?registered through the Court?, at the expense of defendant, or to recover double the amount of the earnest money, as per their wish. It was contended that the 15th and 16th of April, 2006, being holidays, the plaintiffs remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, throughout the day on 17.4.2006, with the remaining sale consideration of Rs.70,000/-, but the defendant did not turn up. A legal notice was sent by the plaintiffs to the defendant on 1.5.2006, through their counsel, asking him to get the sale deed executed and registered by 22.5.2006, or to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-, i.e. double the amount of earnest money, by the said date, failing which the plaintiffs would avail of their legal remedy in Court.
(3.) Upon notice having been issued to him, the defendant filed a written statement taking the usual preliminary objections of locus standi, maintainability etc., including the fact that the plaintiffs had not come with clean hands, having concealed true and material facts from the Court. The agreement and the payment of earnest money of Rs.1,30,000/- was admitted by the defendant, as was the date fixed in the agreement, for execution of the sale deed, i.e. 15.4.2005. However, it was contended that the defendant also remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 17.4.2006, the 15th and 16th of April being holidays, but it was actually the plaintiffs who did not turn up to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, it was contended in the written statement, that the defendant met the plaintiffs and requested them to get the sale deed executed, which they did not and consequently, the defendant had sent a notice to them, through his counsel, on 18.4.2006, requesting them to get the sale deed executed within 7 days on payment of the balance consideration, but despite that, the plaintiffs did not perform their part of the contract and consequently, the earnest money stood forfeited. ;