RAJENDER KUMAR MEENA Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the plaintiff. He had sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.9.1999, Ex.PW-1/1. Appellant has suffered a dismissal of the suit and hence is in appeal.

(2.) Claim of the appellant was that pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 24.9.1999, Ex.PW-1/1, the defendant had agreed to sell flat bearing No.B-54, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi - 85 to him for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and that, as recorded in the agreement to sell, he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant. It was claimed that under the agreement to sell the period prescribed for completion of the sale was 15 months and that before said period expired he had arranged the balance sale consideration in sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. It was claimed that since respondent avoiding to execute the sale deed after accepting balance sale consideration, on 17.11.2000, he had issued a notice requiring defendant to execute the sale documents and receive the balance sale consideration. The respondent took the defence that her son, Pawan, had taken a loan from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had obtained signatures of Pawan and her thumb impression on a blank stamp paper which was used to create the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/1. Receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- as recorded in the agreement to sell was denied.

(3.) It is thus apparent that on the respective pleadings of the parties the main issue which was debated was whether defendant had indeed entered into an agreement to sell as alleged by the appellant and whether terms thereof were as recorded in Ex.PW-1/1.