performed their part of agreement and for which even a legal notice had been served to which no reply was received. It was also pleaded that on 30.5.2007, the plaintiff visited the office of Sub Registrar, Barnala for the purposes of execution of the sale-deed and even got his presence marked through affidavit. As the defendants had not turned up for the execution of the sale-deed, as such, the suit had been instituted. The defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiff by taking a stand that the agreement dated 27.12.2006 had since been cancelled as the plaintiff himself had not made the balance payment on 30.5.2007 and as such, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/stood forfeited. The defendants raised an issue that the plaintiff had wrongly mentioned that a further amount of earnest money of Rs.3 lacs had been paid, whereas it was an amount of Rs.2.50 lacs. The trial Court after hearing the parties and having appreciated the evidence on record decreed the suit for the alternative relief of recovery of Rs.5 lacs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement to sell dated 27.12.2006 and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the decree till the realization of the decretal amount. Being dissatisfied, the defendant-appellants filed civil appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Barnala and vide impugned judgment dated 9.8.2011, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant-defendants has been dismissed.
