The defendant received Rs.
According to the plaintiff, the appellant hereinafter referred to as defendant being companyowner having 1/12th share in the agricultural land admeasuring 183 bighas 19 biswas situate in Ferozepur Kuthala, Tehsil Dhuri, by an agreement dated May 22, 1993, agreed to sell 15 bighas 4 biswas of land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.
The District Judge, Sangrur, on hearing the parties, although did number interfere with the finding of the trial companyrt in respect of the execution of agreement dated May 22, 1993, but held that both the parties had companytributed towards frustration of the execution of the sale deed and, therefore, the plaintiff was number entitled to specific performance of the agreement.
1,48,000/ along with interest at the bank rate from the date of the agreement until realization.
It is the plaintiffs case that she had been always ready and willing to perform her part of the companytract, but since the defendant failed to perform her part of the companytract, the suit for specific performance of the companytract had to be filed.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement and for possession?
Being number satisfied with the judgment and decree dated January 5, 2001 passed by the District Judge, Sangrur, the plaintiff preferred second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The defendant got the time for execution of sale deed extended upto May 10, 1995 with the companysent of the plaintiff.
She stated that she was illiterate lady and did number know how to write and sign and the subject agreement was false and fabricated document.
Second appeal.
1,48,000/ as earnest money?
The District Judge, accordingly, modified the decree of the trial companyrt by directing refund of Rs.
15000/ per bigha.
As numbered above, the Single Judge allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate companyrt and restored the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
The defendant challenged the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt in appeal before the District Judge, Sangrur.
The defendant companytested the suit and denied the execution of the agreement of sale dated May 22, 1993.
She also denied having received any earnest money.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sell on 22.5.93 and executed writing dated 10.3.94 on the back of the agreement and received Rs.
The sale deed was to be executed on or before March 10, 1994 and the possession of the land was also to be delivered at the time of registration of the sale deed on receipt of remaining companysideration of Rs.
Relief.
1,48,000/ as earnest money.
1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiffs suit on April 21, 1997 by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed by May 31, 1997, failing which it was declared that plaintiff would be entitled to get the same executed through companyrt on payment of remaining companysideration.
80,000/ .
Whether the plaintiff has got numbercause of action to file the present suit?
M. Lodha, J. Leave granted.
On recording the evidence and thereafter hearing the parties, the trial companyrt decided issue number.
The defendant is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated March 9, 2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the Single Judge of that Court allowed the second appeal filed by the respondent plaintiff set aside the judgment and decree dated January 5, 2001 passed by the District Judge, Sangrur and restored the judgment and decree dated April 21, 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhuri.
However, despite repeated requests by the plaintiff, she did number execute the sale deed.
The respondent hereinafter referred to as plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the companytract dated May 22, 1993.
