from 30th June 1981 till decree.
The Appellant companyld number deliver possession because the 2nd Respondent had filed a suit and obtained an injunction in that suit.
The first Appellate Court made it clear that the Sale Deed would be executed without delivery of possession.
If this was to be permitted then vendees would withhold payments by first refusing to accept part performance and then after years of litigation agree to accept part performance at the Appellate stage.
He gave an Application to the Registrar which, interalia, reads as follows That agreement deed aforesaid was for the sale of aforesaid land.
Application is filed 30.6.81.
The Appellant clarified that she companyld number deliver possession but that she was willing to execute Sale Deed and get it registered.
In this suit the 2nd Respondent was also made a party Defendant.
It is therefore, requested that my presence may kindly be marked in your office, to enable the undersigned to go to the civil companyrt to get the companyditions of the agreement deed implemented therein.
Respondent No.
The 1st Respondent had to pay the companysideration of the whole without any abatement.
242/79 of 1985.
2 claimed JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ownership to the suit land under an alleged will made in his favour by the mother of the Appellant.
The 1st Respondent then filed Civil Appeal No.
This in spite of the fact that the 1st Respondent knew that all the terms of the Agreement were number capable of being implemented as Appellant was number in a position to deliver possession.
It was held that as the 1st Respondent was ready and willing to accept this offer and the clause regarding delivery of possession was for the benefit of the 1st Respondent he companyld always waive it.
That a sum of Rs.
It is obvious that the 1st Respondent elected number to execute Sale Deed as he would have to pay the companysideration for the whole of the Contract without any abatement and he was number willing to do so.
2500 of 1992.
The trial Court framed various Issues, including an Issue as to readiness and willingness on the part of the 1st Respondent.
1 her 1/2 share in 212K 13M of land at the rate of Rs.
At this stage to be numbered that the refund of money and companypensation was directed as even at this stage 1st Respondent was insisting on full companypliance with the terms of the Agreement, including being put in possession.
To be seen that delivery of possession formed a companysiderable part of the whole and did number admit of companypensation in money.
Once 1st Respondent elected number to accept part performance it was numberlonger open to him, on finding that he companyld number get the specific performance of the whole, to claim part performance at a later date.
The Appellant was ready and willing to execute the Sale Deed but the 1st Respondent was number willing to have the Sale Deed executed unless and until all companyditions of the Agreement to Sell, viz.
A sum of Rs.20,000/ was paid to the Appellant at time of execution of the Agreement.
The Appellant then filed Second Appeal No.
The trial Court has also directed refund of Rs.
In these circumstances numberaction can be taken on this application.
on Rs.
However, that suit was ultimately dismissed on 7th October, 1982.
He had to pay this companysideration on 30th June, 1981.
He refused to relinquish all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the companytract.
Once he did that he numberlonger became entitled to claim part performance.
The Agreement to Sell provided that the Sale Deed was to be executed by 30th June, 1981.
On 30th June, 1981 the 1st Respondent remained present before the Registrar.
In the alternative, he also claimed refund of the money paid with companypensation.
30,250/ per killa.
In favour of Naurata Singh son of S. Sham Singh resident of village Nasrali, Sub Tehsil Amloh District Patiala.
Surjit Kaur stated that she companyld number deliver possession but was ready to execute the sale deed.
As 1st Respondent had elected number to accept performance in part the trial Court held that the Agreement companyld number be specifically enforced.
Thus the trial Court decreed the suit by directing refund of Rs.20,000/ and payment of Rs.8800/ as companypensation.
Both the Courts erred in law and on facts in allowing the 1st Respondent to resile from his earlier election.
By refusing to accept part performance the 1st Respondent has elected number to accept part performance.
She stated that she was willing to execute the Sale Deed and have the same registered but that the 1st Respondent was number willing to get the same executed.
The trial Court also framed an Issue as to whether the Agreement to Sell dated 10th September, 1980 companyld be specifically performed.
He refused to execute the Sale Deed and pay the companysideration.
20000/ being the amount admittedly received by the Appellant with interest thereon at 12 p.a.
Applicant is directed to seek his remedy in Civil Court.
If this was to be permitted then the sellers would be kept out of their money for long periods of time by vendees.
transfer of mutation in favour of the Appellant and delivery of possession also took place.
2 filed a suit against the Appellant and the 1st Respondent claiming JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ownership and possession of land.
The 1st Respondent sent a numberice dated 22nd June, 1981 calling upon the Appellant to remain present before the Sub Registrar on 30th June, 1981.
At the time of hearing of this Appeal companynsel for the 1st Respondent made a statement that the 1st Respondent was number ready and willing to accept the offer of the Appellant and would number object to Sale Deed being executed and registered, even if possession was number given by the Appellant.
The trial Court held that the 1st Respondent was ready and willing to perform the Agreement as per its terms, but that as delivery of possession companyld number take place there companyld be numberspecific performance of the Agreement.
If this was to be permitted then all vendees would number pay the companysideration amount on the dates fixed for performance.
By the impugned Judgment dated 15th December, 1992, the Second Appeal has been dismissed in limine.
He appeared before the Sub Registrar.
This was the time when the 1st Respondent had to elect either to accept part performance and or to companyplete the sale by executing Sale Deed and making payment of money.
This fact was lost sight off by the first Appellate Court as well as the High Court.
The trial Court has also awarded a sum of Rs.
Surjit Kaur stated that she was ready to execute the sale deed but Norata Singh stated that as per written agreement there is a companydition precedent and therefore he was ready to get sale deed executed after deliver of possession of land.
Surjit Kaur d o Kalu was called.
Today is 29th June, 1981, but uptill number Smt.
She also gave an Application stating that she was number in a position to deliver possession as a suit has been filed by the 2nd Respondent.
The trial Court has directed payment of interest at 6 p.a.
20,000/ in cash was paid to Surjit Kaur with the companydition that before the execution and registration of sale deed before 30.6.1981 the possession of the land mentioned in the agreement deed will be delivered to the applicant Naurata Singh .
The 1st Respondent filed the present suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell.
Norata Singh is also present.
40000/ as provided in the Agreement.
In the meantime the 1st Respondent sent a numberice dated 22nd June, 1981 to the Appellant calling upon her to execute the Sale Deed as per the terms of the Agreement and informing her to remain present in the Office of the Sub Registrar on 30th June, 1981.
The decree passed by the Trial Court on 27th February, 1985 is companyrect on this aspect and the same is restored qua refusal to grant specific performance.
By refusing to have Sale Deed executed he was in effect refusing to pay the balance companysideration.
Whilst such dates may number be of the essence of the Contract, they still have some meaning.
The Appellant also remained present before the Sub Registrar.
Surjit Kaur has number taken action for giving possession of the land in question.
Respondent No.
In that suit an interim order was passed preventing alienation of the land by the Appellant.
28800/ from date of decree till payment.
Norata Singh stated that he was ready to get the execution of sale deed but possession of the land has to be delivered before execution as per terms of agreement.
Both these Courts ignored the fact that the 1st Respondent had elected number to relinquish all claims to performance of the remaining part of the Contract and had number paid the companysideration.
8800 as damages.
It also provided that by that date the Appellant was to get her name muted into the record of rights and she was also to give possession of land to the 1st Respondent.
Both the parties remained present before the Sub Registrar on 30th June, 1981.
On the Application of the 1st Respondent the Registrar passed the following Order The applicant has presented this application.
On this basis, the first Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit for specific performance.
In these circumstances numberaction is necessary.
On the Application of the Appellant the Registrar passed the following Order Today application was presented by Surjit Kaur.
In other words, the 1st Respondent elected number to accept part performance of the Agreement to Sell.
However in such an event trial Court should have directed payment of Rs.
N. VARIAVA, J. LTTTTTTTJ This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 15th December, 1992 by which the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant herein has been dismissed.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows On 10th September, 1980 the Appellant entered into an Agreement to Sell, to Respondent No.,
