P K LOHRA, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal under Section 96 CPC is laid on behalf of the appellant -plaintiff to challenge impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar District Hanumangarh dated 20 th January, 2015, whereby the learned Court below has declined relief of specific performance of contract and instead, in its discretion, has granted decree for compensation double the amount paid by the appellant as earnest money.
(2.) IN the plaint, it is, inter alia, averred by the appellant that respondent agreed to sale a house situated at Ward No.10 of Nohar, which is joint family property of the plaintiff and an agreement to sale is also executed on 31st May, 1997. As per agreement to sale, the consideration amount of the suit property was settled as Rs.3,15,000/ - and a sum of Rs.10,000/ - was paid as earnest money. The agreement was executed on stamp of Rs.100/ -. Precisely, in the suit, the appellant -plaintiff has averred that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the respondent resiled from the commitment. In the written statement, third respondent has specifically averred that the suit property is ancestral property and he alone is not the owner of the property and his other siblings and relatives are the co -owners of the property, who have not been arrayed as defendants in the plaint. The factum of execution of agreement to sale itself is also seriously disputed in the written statement. Similarly other respondents have also filed written statements repudiating the claim of the appellant.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of rival parties, the learned trial Court framed four issues for determination. In order to prove his case, the appellant -plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and also examined two other witnesses. The agreement to sale was also produced, which was exhibited . On behalf of respondents, two witnesses namely Noor Mohammad (D.W.1) and Faiz Mohammad (D.W.2) appeared in the witness -box and testified on oath. Learned trial Court after appreciating arguments of the rival parties decided Issues No.1, 3, and 4 jointly as they are co - related. On thorough examination of the evidence available on record, the learned Court below recorded an affirmative finding on Issue No.1 that agreement to sale is executed in favour of the appellant. However, Issues No.3 and 4 were decided against the appellant. While deciding Issue No.3 against the appellant, the learned Court below has found that the appellant has not impleaded other coowners of the property as defendants, who are necessary parties to the suit. That apart, Issue No.4 was also decided against the appellant by holding that execution of agreement to sale is not bona fide and is under serious cloud.;