BALDEV SINGH Vs. NAVALJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.10.1998, has been decreed. In short, plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.10.1998 alleging therein that the defendant had agreed to sell land in dispute @ `45,000 per bigha against which the plaintiff had given `3,30,000 as earnest money. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 30.10.1999. It is alleged that on 30.10.1999 to 01.11.1999 there were holidays. The plaintiff sent a telegram to the defendant to come present on 29.10.1999 or 02.11.1999 for the purpose of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Malerkotla on both the aforesaid dates with the balance sale consideration but the defendant did not turn up. He got his presence marked in the office of Sub Registrar by way of an affidavit and when the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, he had to file the present suit.

(2.) In defence, there is total denial by the defendant of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and of receipt of earnest money, rather allegation of fraud having been played upon him, has been made. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after obtaining oral as well as documentary evidence, the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(3.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the agreement to sell was forged but he could not refer to any evidence from which the forgery could be proved. As a matter of fact, no substantial argument has been raised except for expressing hardship in respect of the agreement to sell on the ground that the land in dispute is the only land of the appellant for which he is ready to return the earnest money with interest, which is alleged to have been received by him.