GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Gurcharan Singh, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff Amrik Singh filed suit against the defendant-appellant for possession of suit property i.e. a house in one kanal land, by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.11.1995. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant, as owner of the suit property, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for Rs.6,00,000/- and executed agreement to sell and received Rs.3,00,000/- as earnest money i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- by cheque and Rs.50,000/- in cash. Sale deed was to be executed up to 20.05.1996. However, the defendant was not ready to execute the sale deed till 20.05.1996 and the defendant accordingly extended the date of execution of sale deed on 20.05.1996 till 19.08.1996. Again, the defendant did not execute the sale deed up to 19.08.1996 and extended the date of execution of sale deed on 19.08.1996 till 19.11.1996 after receiving further amount of Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. Telegram was sent on 18.11.1996 to the defendant reminding him that sale deed was to be executed on 19.11.1996. However, the defendant did not turn up, although plaintiff's son and attorney Matwinder Singh remained present in Tehsil complex on 19.11.1996 with demand draft of Rs.2,50,000/- (balance sale price) in favour of the defendant along with expenses of sale deed. The defendant, while denying the plaint allegations, inter alia pleaded that the defendant had taken friendly loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff through cheque in November 1995 and as security, the defendant gave original sale deed of the suit property to the plaintiff, who also got the impugned agreement signed by the defendant assuring to return the same on repayment of the loan. The defendant repaid the loan, but the plaintiff turned dishonest and did not return the documents. The defendant ultimately filed suit against the plaintiff for permanent injunction to protect his possession and also for mandatory injunction for return of the sale deed and the agreement.

(2.) Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2002, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the defendant against the said judgment and decree has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.