SATNAM SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (original defendant) Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Mehnga Ram has filed the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgement and decree dtd. 27/9/2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Regular Second Appeal no. 3174 of 2008, whereby the High Court while dismissing the Second Appeal had confirmed the judgement and decree dtd. 6/8/2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Nawanshahr (the Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal no. 49 of 2007. The Appellate Court had confirmed the judgement and decree dtd. 14/2/2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (SD) Nawanshahr (the Trial Court) in Civil Suit no. 295 of 2006, by which the suit of the respondent (original plaintiff) Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Inder Singh seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 9/6/2000 in respect of the suit land and possession thereof was decreed.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement dtd. 9/6/2000 against the appellant-defendant alleging inter-alia that an agreement was executed by the defendant on 9/6/2000 in respect of the suit land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas as described in the plaint, for consideration of Rs.2,50,000.00 per acre and for total consideration of Rs.3,54,687.50. The plaintiff had paid Rs.55,000.00 by way of earnest money and had agreed to pay the balance amount within one year of the agreement. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and had approached the defendant offering the balance amount of sale consideration, however, the defendant did not pay any heed to it. The plaintiff, thereafter, had served a legal notice and called upon the defendant to remain present in the office of Sub/Joint Registrar, Nawanshahr to perform his part of contract, however, the defendant did not turn up and hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) The appellant-defendant had resisted the suit by filing the written statement contending inter-alia that he had never executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. According to him, he had taken a loan of Rs.27,000.00 from the plaintiff and the document was prepared only by way of security towards the said loan amount, which was misused by the plaintiff. He also contended that there was no legal notice served to him by the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit.