SHEELA Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question was decreed.

(2.) As per the facts pleaded in the plaint, the defendant-Inder (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) was owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 16 marlas and he agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) by executing agreement to sell dated 15.5.2000 (Ex.P1) @ Rs.3,25,000/- per acre and received a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- by way of earnest money. The aforesaid sale deed was to be executed and registered upto 5.1.2001. The defendant refused to perform his part of agreement to sell. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the land in dispute by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question. Upon notice, the defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff denying the execution of the agreement to sell in question regarding the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff. It was further submitted by the defendant that he was a petty land owner having holding of 13 kanals 16 marlas of agriculture land and that land in dispute also forms part of the same. The land measuring 8 kanals owed by him was already under mortgage with the plaintiff and the remaining land measuring 5 kanals 16 marlas owned by him was the land in dispute in present proceedings. It was further submitted that the agreement in question was a forged document. The plaintiff was a clever person. He had obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on the pretext that the same were required for certain documentation of mortgage etc. regarding the mortgage land. He had made a complaint against him before the police but no action was taken. The defendant never executed any agreement dated 15.5.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, question of receiving of any earnest money of Rs.1,60,000/- does not arise. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

(3.) On appreciation of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession regarding the land in dispute through specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.5.2000 on payment of balance sale consideration.