RAJESH KUMAR Vs. KUSUM LATA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby appeal filed by defendant-respondent has been accepted and judgement of the trial Court in a suit for specific performance for the agreement to sell has been modified to the extent of holding the appellant entitled to the refund of earnest money along with interest declining the relief of specific performance of the agreement in question.

(2.) As per the averments made in the suit, defendant/respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 29.07.2005 in respect of plot No. 483, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Panipat for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,15,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 1 lac from the plaintiff-appellant as earnest money in the presence of witnesses. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the last date for registration of the sale date was fixed as 30.10.2005. The appellant was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour but respondent No. 1 prolonged the matter on the pretext that she would get the sale deed executed and registered on the fixed date. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub- Registrar, Panipat on 31.10.2005 (30.10.2005 being Sunday)-along with the balance sale consideration and expenses. However, respondent No. 1 did not turn up for execution and registration of the sale deed. Thereafter, appellant served a legal notice dated 05.11.2005 upon respondent No. 1 requesting him to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour but to no effect. Hence this suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed their separate written statement. In his written statement, respondent No. 1 raised various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that he was allotted plot in question. Agreement to sell in question was denied. It was further submitted that she had not executed the agreement to sell in question with her consent but the same was got signed by the plaintiff and the attesting witnesses by putting force upon her. The above said persons got her signatures on some blank as well as printed papers which were not read by her as she knew only writing her name. It was also pleaded that she did not receive any amount as earnest money. It was further pleaded that after receiving summons from the Court she verified from respondent No. 2 and came to know that the plot allotted to her could not be sold till the payment of full price of the same to respondent No. 2. All other averments made in the plaint were controverted and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.