IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 Smt. Naraini Devi Manoj Kumar CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. concurrent judgments and decrees of the filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell in dispute both the Courts below. 2. present appeal is of the year 2016. At the time of issuing notice of motion vide order dated stay of the impugned judgments and decrees. dates thereafter when the matter was listed for hearing, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Smt. Naraini Devi Vs. Manoj Kumar HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate Bindu Tanwar Advocate Sahil Nehra for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell in dispute, and possession of the suit property, has been decreed by both the Courts below. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2016. At the time of issuing notice of motion vide order dated 10.11.2016, Co-ordinate Be stay of the impugned judgments and decrees. dates thereafter when the matter was listed for hearing, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-458-2016(O&M) Date of decision: 22.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Senior Advocate with in second appeal against the ld. Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of Agreement and possession of the suit property, has been decreed by At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2016. At the time of issuing notice of motion ordinate Bench of this Court had granted stay of the impugned judgments and decrees. Since then, on numerous dates thereafter when the matter was listed for hearing, the case has been 10 in second appeal against the whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of Agreement and possession of the suit property, has been decreed by At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2016. At the time of issuing notice of motion nch of this Court had granted on numerous has been SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document adjourned at request of learned counsel for the has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. Th neither the appellant nor the matter. As such, the present appeal, heard and decided in the absence of the with the able assistance of the learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiff. 3. status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “defendant” and the respondent as the “plaintiff”. 4. in possession of the Sonepat vide Agreement to Sell had agreed to sell the suit property consideration of Rs.21,50,000/ Rs.2,50,000/- obligations were to be performed on or before 10.03.2008 Rs.2 lakh was received by the defendant. As the formalities of obtaining permission from the Allotting Autho defendant, therefore, time for performance of contract was mutually enlarged on 08.03.2008 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of modification; and a adjourned at request of learned counsel for the in appearance on behalf of the appellant. Th neither the appellant nor her counsel are seriously interested in pursuing As such, the present appeal, being of such old vintage is being heard and decided in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant with the able assistance of the learned Senior Counsel representing the The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “defendant” and the respondent as the “plaintiff”. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant was owner in possession of the suit property describable as plot No. Sonepat vide Agreement to Sell dated 10.12.2007 had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff consideration of Rs.21,50,000/-. On 10.12.2007 itself, amount - was received by the defendant. The remaining contractual obligations were to be performed on or before 10.03.2008 Rs.2 lakh was received by the defendant. As the formalities of obtaining permission from the Allotting Authority/HUDA were not obtained by the defendant, therefore, time for performance of contract was mutually enlarged on 08.03.2008 to 10.04.2008. A further sum of Rs.3,50,000/ paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of modification; and a adjourned at request of learned counsel for the appellant. Even today, none in appearance on behalf of the appellant. Thus, it is clear that seriously interested in pursuing being of such old vintage is being learned counsel for the appellant with the able assistance of the learned Senior Counsel representing the The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “defendant” Brief facts of the case are that the defendant was owner suit property describable as plot No.1610, Sector 23, dated 10.12.2007 (Ex.P1). The defendant to the plaintiff for total sale . On 10.12.2007 itself, amount of was received by the defendant. The remaining contractual obligations were to be performed on or before 10.03.2008. Another sum of Rs.2 lakh was received by the defendant. As the formalities of obtaining rity/HUDA were not obtained by the defendant, therefore, time for performance of contract was mutually . A further sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of modification; and a 10 . Even today, none us, it is clear that seriously interested in pursuing being of such old vintage is being learned counsel for the appellant with the able assistance of the learned Senior Counsel representing the The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “defendant” Brief facts of the case are that the defendant was owner 1610, Sector 23, . The defendant total sale of was received by the defendant. The remaining contractual . Another sum of Rs.2 lakh was received by the defendant. As the formalities of obtaining rity/HUDA were not obtained by the defendant, therefore, time for performance of contract was mutually was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of modification; and a SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document further sum of Rs.2,50,000/ 15.03.2008. On 10.04.2008 necessary funds and went to office of the Sub registered but the defendant did n had served a legal notice dated 29.07.2008 asked to perform her contractual obligations on 11.08.2008. However, to no avail. As such, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 21.08.20 5. learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs performance of the agreement to sell in dispute and the defendant is directed to execute and get registered requisite sale plaintiff after receiving the remaining with in a period of three months from today and thereafter handover vacant possession of the plot/house in dispute to the plaintiff...”. the defendant was dismissed with costs by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 appeal. 6. pleaded by the appellant/defendant that it has been learned Courts below that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been pleaded in Para 7 of the present Grounds of Appeal that further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15.03.2008. On 10.04.2008, the plaintiff was ready with the remaining necessary funds and went to office of the Sub registered but the defendant did not come present. had served a legal notice dated 29.07.2008 asked to perform her contractual obligations on 11.08.2008. However, to no As such, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 21.08.20 Vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2013 learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs performance of the agreement to sell in dispute and the defendant is directed to execute and get registered requisite sale plaintiff after receiving the remaining amount of the sale consideration, with in a period of three months from today and thereafter handover vacant possession of the plot/house in dispute to the plaintiff...”. defendant was dismissed with costs by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 Grounds of the present appeal reveal that it has been pleaded by the appellant/defendant that it has been learned Courts below that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been pleaded in Para 7 of the present Grounds of Appeal that “...the Ld. Courts below have also failed to appreciate that in was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on , the plaintiff was ready with the remaining necessary funds and went to office of the Sub-Registrar to get the Sale Deed ot come present. Thereafter, the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 29.07.2008 whereby the defendant was asked to perform her contractual obligations on 11.08.2008. However, to no As such, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 21.08.2008. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2013, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs “...for specific performance of the agreement to sell in dispute and the defendant is directed to execute and get registered requisite sale deed in favour of amount of the sale consideration, with in a period of three months from today and thereafter handover vacant possession of the plot/house in dispute to the plaintiff...”. The appeal filed by defendant was dismissed with costs by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015. Hence, present second Grounds of the present appeal reveal that it has been pleaded by the appellant/defendant that it has been wrongly held by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been pleaded in Para 7 of the present Grounds of “...the Ld. Courts below have also failed to appreciate that in 10 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on , the plaintiff was ready with the remaining Registrar to get the Sale Deed Thereafter, the plaintiff whereby the defendant was asked to perform her contractual obligations on 11.08.2008. However, to no , the “...for specific performance of the agreement to sell in dispute and the defendant is of amount of the sale consideration, with in a period of three months from today and thereafter handover vacant The appeal filed by defendant was dismissed with costs by the learned lower Appellate . Hence, present second Grounds of the present appeal reveal that it has been wrongly held by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been pleaded in Para 7 of the present Grounds of “...the Ld. Courts below have also failed to appreciate that in SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the presence scenario the price of the land has been increasing very rapidly which cause undue advantages upon the seller/ appellant. In this context, the Ld. Courts below should have decided that time is essence of contract but the Ld. Courts below have wrongl essence of contract.”. received legal notice dated 29.07.2008 that the plaintiff had failed to prove 10.04.2008. 7. Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff that it has been concurrently found by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff had duly proven his readiness and willingn 10.04.2008. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel through the relevant findings recorded to this effect below. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 8. respondent/plaintiff as also gone through the case file in minute detail. 9. entire dispute at hand recorded hereinafter Agreement to Sell has been admitted by the defendant in her statement as also resence scenario the price of the land has been increasing very rapidly which cause undue advantages upon the seller/ appellant. In this context, the Ld. Courts below should have decided that time is essence of contract but the Ld. Courts below have wrongly held that in this case time is not the essence of contract.”. It has also been contended that the defendant never received legal notice dated 29.07.2008 (Ex.P8). It has also been contended that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was having suffici On the other hand, it is pointed out by learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff that it has been concurrently found by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff had duly proven his readiness and willingness to perform the contract on the target date of 10.04.2008. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel through the relevant findings recorded to this effect below. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff as also gone through the case file in minute detail. After having given my thoughtful c entire dispute at hand, I find no merit in the present appeal recorded hereinafter. A perusal of the record reveals that the disputed Agreement to Sell has been admitted by the defendant in her statement as also in her evidence. The defendant has also admitted that resence scenario the price of the land has been increasing very rapidly which cause undue advantages upon the seller/ appellant. In this context, the Ld. Courts below should have decided that time is essence of contract y held that in this case time is not the It has also been contended that the defendant never (Ex.P8). It has also been contended that he was having sufficient funds on On the other hand, it is pointed out by learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff that it has been concurrently found by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff had duly proven his ess to perform the contract on the target date of 10.04.2008. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the relevant findings recorded to this effect, by the learned Courts below. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff as also gone through the case file in minute detail. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the , I find no merit in the present appeal for the reasons . A perusal of the record reveals that the disputed Agreement to Sell has been admitted by the defendant in her written The defendant has also admitted that 10 resence scenario the price of the land has been increasing very rapidly which cause undue advantages upon the seller/ appellant. In this context, the Ld. Courts below should have decided that time is essence of contract y held that in this case time is not the It has also been contended that the defendant never (Ex.P8). It has also been contended ent funds on On the other hand, it is pointed out by learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff that it has been concurrently found by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff had duly proven his ess to perform the contract on the target date of Court by the learned Courts I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the to the for the reasons . A perusal of the record reveals that the disputed written The defendant has also admitted that SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document payment of Rs.10 lakh has been made by the plaintiff to the defendant. Para 1 of the written statement dated 15.12.2008 25 of the LCR), the defendant has 10. and has also admitted receipt (Ex.P2) of Rs.10 lakh advance payment and only balance amount of Rs.11,50,000/ on or before agreed date on 10.04.2008 the only question that remained to be determined by the Courts below was the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform the contract. 11. parties for 10.04.2008 evidence to prove that she was present in the office of the Sub payment of Rs.10 lakh has been made by the plaintiff to the defendant. the written statement dated 15.12.2008 25 of the LCR), the defendant has stated as follows: “...It is submitted that as per Agreement to Sell dated 10.12.2007, it was decided that the Plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the date of agreement as earnest money and pay the remaining amount to the Defendant by 10.03.2008, and get the sale itself....It is, submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract as the time is the essence of every contract and in the present case the Plaintiff has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.11,50,000/ date that is 10.04.2008. Rather the Plaintiff in the garb of the aforesaid agreement tried to blackmail the Defendant by demanding Rs.20,00,000/- and had infact approached the local police with a false and frivolous complaint...”. Thus, the defendant has admitted the Agreement to Sell; and has also admitted receipt (Ex.P2) of Rs.10 lakh advance payment and only balance amount of Rs.11,50,000/- remained to be paid by the plaintiff on or before agreed date on 10.04.2008. In th the only question that remained to be determined by the Courts below was the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform the contract. As noted above, the target date was mutually set by the parties for 10.04.2008. Record reveals that defendant failed to produce any evidence to prove that she was present in the office of the Sub payment of Rs.10 lakh has been made by the plaintiff to the defendant. In the written statement dated 15.12.2008 (available at pages 18 to as follows:- “...It is submitted that as per Agreement to Sell dated 10.12.2007, it was decided that the Plaintiff would pay a sum on the date of agreement as earnest money and pay the remaining amount to the Defendant by 10.03.2008, and get the sale deed executed on that day It is, submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract as the time is the essence of every contract and in the present case the Plaintiff has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.11,50,000/- on or before the agreed date that is 10.04.2008. Rather the Plaintiff in the garb of the aforesaid agreement tried to blackmail the Defendant by and had infact approached the local police with a false and frivolous complaint...”. the defendant has admitted the Agreement to Sell; and has also admitted receipt (Ex.P2) of Rs.10 lakh advance payment and remained to be paid by the plaintiff In the face of these admissions, the only question that remained to be determined by the Courts below was the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform the contract. As noted above, the target date was mutually set by the defendant failed to produce any evidence to prove that she was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 10 n (available at pages 18 to “...It is submitted that as per Agreement to Sell dated 10.12.2007, it was decided that the Plaintiff would pay a sum on the date of agreement as earnest money and pay the remaining amount to the Defendant by deed executed on that day It is, submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract as the time is the essence of every contract and in the present case the Plaintiff has failed to pay on or before the agreed date that is 10.04.2008. Rather the Plaintiff in the garb of the aforesaid agreement tried to blackmail the Defendant by and had infact approached the local the defendant has admitted the Agreement to Sell; and has also admitted receipt (Ex.P2) of Rs.10 lakh advance payment and remained to be paid by the plaintiff , the only question that remained to be determined by the Courts below was As noted above, the target date was mutually set by the defendant failed to produce any Registrar on SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10.04.2008. examination that on 10.04.2008, she did not go to the of Registrar for execution of the Sale Deed because plaintiff had made a complaint against her to the Police. It has also been admitted by the defendant in her cross was granted to her by H permission, she had not given any notice to the plaintiff. 12. the office of the Sub of Ex.P7, affidavit sworn by Executive Magistrate reveals that vendee/plaintiff remained present in the office of concerned Sub Deed. Since the time for performance was admittedly mutually enlarged, therefore, vendor/defenda Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff, after receiving remaining sale consideration. However, as noted above, the She has further vendee had visited office of Sub conceded that after 10.04.2008, vendee filed a complaint against her. From the above, it is clear that vendee did whatever he could for performance of Agreement to Sell in dispute. He visited office of Sub affidavit attested, filed a complaint against vendor for not honouring her 10.04.2008. On the contrary, the defendant has admitted in her cross examination that on 10.04.2008, she did not go to the of Registrar for execution of the Sale Deed because plaintiff had made a complaint against her to the Police. It has also been admitted by the defendant in her cross-examination that permission to sell the suit property was granted to her by HUDA after 10.04.2008 and that after getting the said permission, she had not given any notice to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff proved his presence in the office of the Sub-Registrar on the target date on 10.04.2008 .P7, affidavit sworn by plaintiff on 10.04.2008, Executive Magistrate reveals that vendee/plaintiff remained present in the office of concerned Sub-Registrar for execution and registration of Sale Deed. Since the time for performance was admittedly mutually enlarged, therefore, vendor/defendant was under an obligation to execute requisite Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff, after receiving remaining sale consideration. as noted above, the defendant did not visit office of Sub further conceded in cross-examination that vendee had visited office of Sub-Registrar on 10.04.2008 or not. She also conceded that after 10.04.2008, vendee filed a complaint against her. From the above, it is clear that vendee did whatever he could for performance of nt to Sell in dispute. He visited office of Sub affidavit attested, filed a complaint against vendor for not honouring her the defendant has admitted in her cross- examination that on 10.04.2008, she did not go to the office of the Sub- Registrar for execution of the Sale Deed because plaintiff had made a complaint against her to the Police. It has also been admitted by the examination that permission to sell the suit property UDA after 10.04.2008 and that after getting the said permission, she had not given any notice to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff proved his presence in Registrar on the target date on 10.04.2008. A perusal on 10.04.2008, duly attested by Executive Magistrate reveals that vendee/plaintiff remained present in the Registrar for execution and registration of Sale Deed. Since the time for performance was admittedly mutually enlarged, nt was under an obligation to execute requisite Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff, after receiving remaining sale consideration. did not visit office of Sub-Registrar. examination that she cannot say whether Registrar on 10.04.2008 or not. She also conceded that after 10.04.2008, vendee filed a complaint against her. From the above, it is clear that vendee did whatever he could for performance of nt to Sell in dispute. He visited office of Sub-Registrar, got his affidavit attested, filed a complaint against vendor for not honouring her 10 - - Registrar for execution of the Sale Deed because plaintiff had made a complaint against her to the Police. It has also been admitted by the examination that permission to sell the suit property UDA after 10.04.2008 and that after getting the said On the other hand, the plaintiff proved his presence in A perusal attested by Executive Magistrate reveals that vendee/plaintiff remained present in the Registrar for execution and registration of Sale Deed. Since the time for performance was admittedly mutually enlarged, nt was under an obligation to execute requisite Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff, after receiving remaining sale consideration. Registrar. she cannot say whether Registrar on 10.04.2008 or not. She also conceded that after 10.04.2008, vendee filed a complaint against her. From the above, it is clear that vendee did whatever he could for performance of Registrar, got his affidavit attested, filed a complaint against vendor for not honouring her SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document contractual obligations and got legal notice (Ex.P8) which shows that legal notice was sent to defendant on 29.07. counsel. Thereafter, suit was also promptly filed on 21.08.2008. Plaintiff has Rs.21,50,000/ defendant failed to appear on 10.04.2008. Defendant has cross-examination that on 10.04.2008 Registrar for execution of Sale Deed because plaintiff had made complaint against her to Police. It is therefore, breached Agree days after the Rs.90,000/-approx perform his part of contract. 13. Court are contained in Paras 8 and 10 of the impugned judgment 01.07.2013, which read as follows: contractual obligations and got legal notice (Ex.P8) which shows that legal notice was sent to defendant on 29.07.2008, and served upon her through counsel. Thereafter, suit was also promptly filed on 21.08.2008. Plaintiff has also paid sum of Rs.10 lakh out of sale consideration of Rs.21,50,000/-. Plaintiff appeared in the office of Sub defendant failed to appear on 10.04.2008. Defendant has examination that on 10.04.2008 she did not go to office of Sub Registrar for execution of Sale Deed because plaintiff had made complaint against her to Police. It is therefore, proved that breached Agreement to Sell; whereas Plaintiff filed the suit 4 months 11 after the date fixed for execution of Sale Deed by affixing Court fees of approximately, which shows that he was ready and willing perform his part of contract. The relevant findings in this respect of the learned trial Court are contained in Paras 8 and 10 of the impugned judgment , which read as follows:- “8....Though learned counsel for the vendor tried to dispute the amount of upfront money paid by the vendee; but he was painfully confronted with the paragraph number 1 of the reply on merits of the written statement filed on behalf of vendor; whereby she has conceded that the vendee has failed to make payment of the remaining amount of Rs.11,50,000/ total sale consideration of Rs.21,50,000/ contractual obligations and got legal notice (Ex.P8) which shows that legal 2008, and served upon her through counsel. Thereafter, suit was also promptly filed on 21.08.2008. Admittedly, paid sum of Rs.10 lakh out of sale consideration of . Plaintiff appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar whereas defendant failed to appear on 10.04.2008. Defendant has also admitted in she did not go to office of Sub- Registrar for execution of Sale Deed because plaintiff had made complaint proved that it was the defendant who Plaintiff filed the suit 4 months 11 date fixed for execution of Sale Deed by affixing Court fees of shows that he was ready and willing to in this respect of the learned trial Court are contained in Paras 8 and 10 of the impugned judgment dated “8....Though learned counsel for the vendor tried to dispute the amount of upfront money paid by the vendee; but he was painfully confronted with the paragraph number 1 of the reply on merits of the written statement filed on behalf of vendor; has conceded that the vendee has failed to make payment of the remaining amount of Rs.11,50,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.21,50,000/-. Thus there should be 10 contractual obligations and got legal notice (Ex.P8) which shows that legal 2008, and served upon her through , paid sum of Rs.10 lakh out of sale consideration of whereas in - Registrar for execution of Sale Deed because plaintiff had made complaint who Plaintiff filed the suit 4 months 11 date fixed for execution of Sale Deed by affixing Court fees of to “8....Though learned counsel for the vendor tried to dispute the amount of upfront money paid by the vendee; but he was painfully confronted with the paragraph number 1 of the reply on merits of the written statement filed on behalf of vendor; has conceded that the vendee has failed to make out of the . Thus there should be SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for not honoring her cont no dispute to the fact that the vendor, in her pleadings, has admitted receipt of Rs.10,00,000/ XXX 10. A perusal of Exhibit P-7, affidavit sworn by the vendee on 10-04-2008, attested by the Executive Magistrate concerned, reveals that the vendee remained present in the concerned Sub-Registrar for execution and sale deed. Since the time for performance was admittedly mutually enlarged, therefore the vendor was under an obligation to execute requisite sale deed in favour of vendee after receiving the remaining sale consideration. However she did not visit the office of the concerned Sub conceded in her cross-examination that she cannot say as to whether the vendee had visited the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar on 10-04-2008 or not. She has also conceded in her cross-examination that after 10 complaint against her. She has further conceded that requisite permission from HUDA was received only after 10 she did not apprise this fact to the vendee as he had filed a complaint against her. It is thus ample clear that the vendee did whatever he could for the performance of the agreement to sell in dispute. He visited the office of concerned Sub got his affidavit attested; filed a complaint against the vendor for not honoring her contractual obligations and got a legal notice served through a counsel. Thereafter this suit was also promptly filed on 21-08-2008. The conduct of the parties proves that the vendee was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contractual obl vendor who is avoiding execution of the sale deed. The reasons no dispute to the fact that the vendor, in her pleadings, has Rs.10,00,000/-. 7, affidavit sworn by the vendee on 2008, attested by the Executive Magistrate concerned, reveals that the vendee remained present in the office of the Registrar for execution and registration of the sale deed. Since the time for performance was admittedly mutually enlarged, therefore the vendor was under an obligation to execute requisite sale deed in favour of vendee after receiving the remaining sale consideration. However she not visit the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar. She has examination that she cannot say as to whether the vendee had visited the office of the concerned 2008 or not. She has also conceded in ination that after 10-04-2008, vendee filed a complaint against her. She has further conceded that requisite eived only after 10-04-2008 and e did not apprise this fact to the vendee as he had filed a is thus ample clear that the vendee did whatever he could for the performance of the agreement to sell in dispute. He visited the office of concerned Sub-Registrar; a complaint against the vendor ractual obligations and got a legal notice served through a counsel. Thereafter this suit was also 2008. The conduct of the parties he vendee was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contractual obligations and it is the vendor who is avoiding execution of the sale deed. The reasons 10 no dispute to the fact that the vendor, in her pleadings, has 7, affidavit sworn by the vendee on 2008, attested by the Executive Magistrate concerned, of the egistration of the sale deed. Since the time for performance was admittedly mutually enlarged, therefore the vendor was under an obligation to execute requisite sale deed in favour of vendee after receiving the remaining sale consideration. However she Registrar. She has examination that she cannot say as to whether the vendee had visited the office of the concerned 2008 or not. She has also conceded in 2008, vendee filed a complaint against her. She has further conceded that requisite 2008 and e did not apprise this fact to the vendee as he had filed a is thus ample clear that the vendee did whatever he could for the performance of the agreement to Registrar; a complaint against the vendor ractual obligations and got a legal notice served through a counsel. Thereafter this suit was also 2008. The conduct of the parties he vendee was and is still ready and willing to igations and it is the vendor who is avoiding execution of the sale deed. The reasons SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document from the vendee. 14. Appellate Court in judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 from the plaintiff towards sale consideration of the suit are obvious. She has received an amount of Rs. 10,00, 000/ from the vendee.” Similar findings have been recorded by the Appellate Court in judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 “17. In the present case, the execution of the agree sell Ex.P1 has been admitted by th agreement Ex.P1 shows that total sale consider suit property was ₹ 21,50,000/- 2,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money. It was also agreed in the agreement that plaintiff would pay a further sum of defendant up to 25.12.2007. In that the sale deed will be executed up to 10.03.2008. The endorsement made on the back of the agreemen Ex.P1 shows that the last date for execution of the sale deed was extended up to 10.04.2008. In this endorsement defendant has admitted that she had received from the plaintiff towards sale consideration of the suit property. The endorsement Ex.P4 on the back of the agreement further shows that defendant received a sum of 2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on she had received ₹ 10,00,000/- money. Defendant has admitted her signat agreement Ex.P1 and receipts Ex. P2, P3 and P4. In receipt Ex. P4, it is clearly stated that defendant had receiv 10,00,000/- from the plaintiff towards balance sale consideration.” are obvious. She has received an amount of Rs. 10,00, 000/- Similar findings have been recorded by the ld. lower Appellate Court in judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015, as follows:- n the present case, the execution of the agreement to has been admitted by the defendant. The that total sale consideration of the - out of which an amount of ₹ was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money. It was also agreed in the agreement that iff would pay a further sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the defendant up to 25.12.2007. In the agreement, it was agreed that the sale deed will be executed up to 10.03.2008. The endorsement made on the back of the agreement to sell shows that the last date for execution of the sale deed was extended up to 10.04.2008. In this endorsement admitted that she had received ₹ 7,50,000/- from the plaintiff towards sale consideration of the suit property. The endorsement Ex.P4 on the back of the at defendant received a sum of ₹ 15.03.2008 and admitted that - from the plaintiff as earnest money. Defendant has admitted her signatures on the and receipts Ex. P2, P3 and P4. In receipt Ex. ed that defendant had received ₹ from the plaintiff towards balance sale 10 - SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15. record, present appeal is 16. 22.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: In view of the above undisputed facts and findings on , present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No undisputed facts and findings on Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 10 SUNENA 2025.04.23 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document