RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK,J. - (1.)Instant regular second appeal, at the hands of unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.09.2016, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed his appeal, upholding the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2013 of the learned trial Court, partly decreeing the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, granting alternative relief of recovery of earnest money along with interest.
(2.)Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned trial Court in para 1 of its impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.06.2005 against the defendants on the ground that Daulat Singh son of Gurmukh Singh was the owner of land measuring 8 kanals i.e. 160/3204 share of total land measuring 160 Kanal 4 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 67 situated at Village Ladhuwas, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. Daulat Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants entered into an agreement dated 14.06.2005 to sell the land measuring 8 Kanal with the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and received Rs. 46,500/- as earnest money in the presence of witnesses, whereas the sale deed was to be executed on 15.06.2006. As per the terms and conditions, the vendor was bound to execute the sale deed and get it registered by the date fixed, in favour of the vendee or any other person of his choice on receiving the balance sale consideration as well as getting the expenses of stamps and registration fee etc. incurred by the purchaser. In case the vendor failed to perform his part of contract, the vendee was at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered through Court at the expenses of the vendor, whereas if the vendee failed to perform his part of contract in that eventuality, the earnest money would be forfeited in favour of the vendor. It was further submitted that on 15.06.2006, the plaintiff along with balance sale consideration and expenses of stamp etc. was present in the office of Sub Registrar, Ratia to get the sale deed executed and waited there for Daulat Singh throughout the day but he did not turn up. At this, he got his presence marked by way of executing an affidavit and getting it attested from the Executive Magistrate-cum-Sub Registrar, Ratia. Besides, the plaintiff approached several time to said Daulat Singh for execution of the sale deed, but he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. After that Daulat Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was expired and plaintiff requested his legal heirs to get the sale deed executed in his favour. It was further averred that when the defendants failed to get the sale deed executed in his favour, then he sent a legal notice dated 01.06.2009 through his Advocate to the defendants to get the sale deed executed on 10.06.2009. On 10.06.2009, the plaintiff waited for the defendants in the office of Sub Registrar, Ratia along with balance sale consideration and expenses of stamps etc., but the defendants did not turn up and thereafter, the plaintiff got his presence marked by way of executing an affidavit and getting it attested from the Executive Magistrate-cum-Sub Registrar, Ratia. He was always and still ready to get the sale deed executed, but the defendants in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement failed to get the sale deed executed in his favour. The defendants threatened the plaintiff to alienate/transfer the suit property in favour of some other person. The plaintiff requested the defendants several times to get the sale deed executed and registered but all in vain. In case, the Court reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled for main relief of possession by way of specific performance, in that eventuality, the suit be treated for recovery of Rs. 46,500/- as earnest money already paid and Rs. 13,500/- as damages-cum-compensation for breach of contract by the defendants i.e. total Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.
(3.)Having been served in the suit, defendants put appearance and filed their contesting written statement, raising more than one preliminary objections. Plaintiff filed his replication. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: -
1. Whether the predecessor-in-interest of defendants namely Daulat Singh on dated 14.06.2005 entered into an agreement of sale of the disputed land with the plaintiff for a sale consideration of 60,000/- and received a sum of 46,500/- as of earnest money from the plaintiff on that date in lieu thereof? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

6. Relief.