HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale was decreed.
(2.) AS per the plaintiff, on 21.04.1989 the defendants agreed to sell land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money. It was agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 11.05.1989 on payment of the balance sale consideration. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on the date fixed for the execution of the sale deed, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Therefore, the present suit for specific performance was filed on 13.09.1991. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact in respect of execution of agreement of sale dated 21.04.1989, Exhibit P1 by the appellant. Such finding has been returned on the basis of statement of defendant No. 1 Bhaiya Ram DW2 himself, wherein he has admitted his signatures on the agreement. He has also admitted that he received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement of sale and that no fraud was committed by the plaintiffs upon him. In fact, no attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to dispute such finding recorded by the Courts below.
(3.) THE sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit for specific performance has been filed after two years of the date fixed for the execution of the sale. Therefore, the plaintiff are not entitled to decree for specific performance. Reliance is placed on K.S. Vidyanadam and others v. Vairavan, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 312 : AIR 1997 SC 1750; Ram Niwas Gupta v. Mumtaz Hasan and others, 2002(3) RCR(Civil) 205 : 2002(2) PLR 353 : 2002(2) LJR 328 : 2002(1) PLJ 175 and Smt. Ralli and others v. Smt. Satinderjit Kaur, 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 114 : 1998(2) PLJ 305 : (1998-1)118 PLR 666.;