CHAMKAUR SINGH Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two identical Regular Second Appeals bearing RSA No.4070 of 2016 (Chamkaur Singh and another Vs. Raghbir Singh and another) and RSA No.5454 of 2016 (Amandeep Kaur Vs. Raghbir Singh and others), at the hands of two sets of defendants, are directed against the same impugned judgements and decrees, whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by the plaintiff were decreed by both the learned Courts below, recording their concurrent findings of fact.

(2.) Facts of the case, as noticed by learned trial Court in para 2 of its impugned judgement, are that on 14.12006, Jeet Singh, father of the defendants entered into an agreement to sell the suit property as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint @ Rs. 90,000.00 per bigha with the plaintiff and they received Rs. 1,50,000.00 in cash in the presence of witnesses. Jeet Singh further agreed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 15.05.2007. On 15.05.2007, Jeet Singh showed his inability to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to extend the date from 15.05.2007 to 15.06.2007 for the execution of the sale deed on the request of Jeet Singh and a writing regarding the extension of the date was also executed by Jeet Singh in favour of the plaintiff. On 15.06.2007, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but Jeet Singh did not turn up and plaintiff got attested his affidavit on 15.06.2007 from Notary Public Nabha. Jeet Singh had expired on 18.02010 leaving behind the defendants as his only legal heirs, as such the defendants were liable to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per terms and conditions of the agreement and the writing. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing and was still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell in question. It was further pleaded that in case Court came to the conclusion that specific performance was not feasible then plaintiff was entitled for any other additional or alternative relief to which the Court deemed fit. It was further pleaded that in contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement in question, the defendants were threatening to alienate, sell, transfer, mortgage and dispose of the suit property to some unknown persons except the plaintiff for which he had no right to do so. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit his claim and desist from above said illegal activities but to no avail.

(3.) Having been served in the suit filed by the plaintiff, defendants appeared and filed their separate written statements, raising more than one preliminary objections. Plaintiff filed his replication denying the averments taken by the defendants in their written statements. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: -