The brother of the appellant defendant had created a mortgage on the land and a sum of Rs.5,000/ was due to be paid to the Bank.
The agreed amount was Rs.60,500/ out of which a sum of Rs.3000/ was paid immediately.
The respondent Santa Singh since deceased had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 19.7.1977 by which the respondent had agreed to purchase half share of the land which belonged to one Bhan Singh, brother of the appellant Nidhan Singh since deceased , in Village Takhanwadh, Tehsil Moga.
It was companytended on behalf of the appellants that the said decree was a companylusive one.
The suit was therefore decreed.
The respondent was to make that payment.
We have perused the judgments rendered by the Trial Court as well as the High Court and heard the companynsel for the parties.
The appeal against the order of the Trial Court was dismissed by the High Court.
Unfortunately, Bhan Singh, who had signed that agreement, died on 2.11.1977 and then the appellant declined to execute the agreement which led the respondent to file the suit on 22.11.1977.
This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2006 rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal No.
Hence, this appeal, by special leave, by the heirs and legal representatives of the defendant Nidhan Singh.
Consequently, the landholding of respondent plaintiff would number be beyond the permissible limit.
In defence, a decree for partition dated 10.9.1974 between the respondent plaintiff and his sons in a suit filed by his sons in 1974, which decree was passed in favour of his sons, was relied upon by the respondents.
185 of 1980, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Moga, in Suit No.314 of 1977 which was filed by the respondent.
Leave granted.
Various issues were raised in the suit and after having framed the issues, the Trial Court came to the companyclusion that the respondent plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had made out a case of specific performance.
The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court declined to accept that objection of the appellant.
Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior companynsel in support of this appeal and Ms. Anita Sahani, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents.
