AAMIN Vs. JAKIR HUSSAIN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Main Appeal and CM No. 14267-C of 2010

(2.) Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff Jakir Hussain filed suit against proforma Respondent No. 2 Smt. Firozi-Defendant No. 1 and against Appellant-Aamin-Defendant No. 2 for possession of suit land by specific performance of the agreement alleging that Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to the Plaintiff for Rs. 20,00,000/- and received Rs. 16,50,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 01.08.2007. Sale deed was to be executed upto 30.07.2008. The Plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He also offered the balance consideration with expenses of sale deed to Defendant No. 1, but she did not perform her part of the contract. On 30.07.2008, the Plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar with requisite money to get the sale deed executed and registered in terms of the agreement, but Defendant No. 1 did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement. The Plaintiff learnt from Halka Pat-wari that Defendant No. 1 had executed release deed dated 22.08.2007 in favour of Defendant No. 2 Appellant alleging him to be her son. Defendant No. 2 is not son of Defendant No. 1. Release deed has been executed to only defeat the impugned agreement.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 admitted that she agreed to sell the suit land to Plaintiff for Rs. 20,00,000/- and executed the aforesaid agreement and received Rs. 16,50,000/- from the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, however, pleaded that Khachedu son of Jagroop committed fraud with Defendant No. 1. Said Khachedu and Defendant No. 1 had sold 2 marlas land to Smt. Jaiboon Nisha on 22.08.2007 vide registered sale deed, but Khachedu in order to grab the suit land of Defendant No. 1 by fraud depicted his grand son Aamin-Defendant No. 2 as son of Mamla (deceased husband of Defendant No. 1) whereas in fact Defendant No. 2 is son of Saddiq son of Khachedu. Defendant No. 2 is neither son of Defendant No. 1 nor son of her deceased husband. On account of alleged release deed, Defendant No. 1 could not execute sale deed in favour of Plaintiff in terms of the agreement. Defendant No. 1 was also initiating legal action against Defendant No. 2 and Khachedu and other concerned persons regarding fraud committed in obtaining the alleged release deed. In fact Defendant No. 1 never executed any release deed in favour of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex parte.