RSA No.1532 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... RSA No.1532 of 2009 Decided on : April 20, 2009 Makhan Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Phulla Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This Regular Second Appeal is against the judgment dated 19.2.2009 passed by District Judge, Bathinda, affirming the judgment dated 29.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda decreeing the suit of the plaintiff – appellant (herein referred as `appellant') for alternative relief for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of the execution of the agreement (Ex.P1) till realisation. Heard. It is duly established on the record that the agreement was executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant after receiving a RSA No.1532 of 2009 [ 2 ] sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. All the documents (Ex.P1 to P-9) have been proved on record in order to show that the respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. As a matter of fact, both the courts below found the title of the respondent (defendant) as defective. Thus, in that situation, both the courts were right in declining the relief of specific performance. The respondent in his written statement before the Trial Court admitted that the land in question is Shamlat Deh and he had given the possession of the suit land to the appellant and he was to execute the sale-deed as soon as he (defendant-respondent) becomes the owner of the property. It is a fact that the respondent has not become owner of the disputed property so far. It is settled principle of law that buyer should have been beware with regard to the title of the property and in the present case, since the respondent – defendant has defective title, therefore, specific performance of the alleged contract could not be ordered. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. April 20, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE