R.S.A. No. 1527 of 1993 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1527 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2009 Jagir Singh and others ....appellants versus Santa Singh and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.S. Chandi, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. D.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1993 passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27.6.1975, regarding land measuring 16 kanals, comprised in K/K. No. 71/91, 99 and khasra Nos. 16/9 (8-0), 12 (8-0) as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 at village Gatti Pir Bux, Tehsil Nakodar, stands decreed. The plaintiff/respondent brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance, on the pleadings, that in pursuance to the R.S.A. No. 1527 of 1993 (O&M) -2- agreement to sell, the plaintiff/respondent was willing to perform his part of contract, however, defendants committed breach of the contract. The learned trial Court held that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.6.1975 and earnest money was received by him. The learned trial Court was further pleased to hold that the agreement was not outcome of fraud or mis- representation. The learned trial Court also held that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The suit was held to be within limitation. In view of the finding that the plaintiff/respondent was not willing to perform his part of contract, the suit was ordered to be dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 4 and held that the plaintiff/respondent was willing and remained always willing to perform his part of contract, in view of the fact that notice was proved on record calling upon the defendant/appellants to execute the sale deed. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties have compromised the matter. Copy of the compromise, which is supported by affidavits of the parties, is taken on record as Ex. A. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is present in Court and admits due execution of the compromise entered into between the parties. The appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise Ex. A entered into between the parties. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 06, 2009 R.S.