SURINDER PAL SINGH Vs. HARPREET SINGH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant No. 1 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 has been decreed.

(2.) In brief, Defendant No. 1/Appellant entered into an agreement to sell dated 11.2.2001 with the Plaintiff to sell the house in dispute for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs after receiving earnest money of Rs. 2,35,000/ - and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 10.7.2001. However, on 9.7.2001, with the mutual consent, Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff extended the date of execution of sale deed from 10.7.2001 to 8.10.2002, but when the Defendant/Appellant did not come forward for the purpose of execution and registration of the sale deed, the Plaintiff had to file the suit. It is alleged that the Plaintiff had filed another civil suit on 08.4.2002 when it came to his notice that Defendant No. 1 had started negotiating with Defendant No. 2. for the purpose of sale of the house in dispute. In the said suit, the Civil Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo regarding alienation on 15.4.2002 and the said order was made absolute on 09.5.2002. The Defendant No. 2. was proceeded against ex-parte on 20.3.2003 and the suit was contested by Defendant No. 1 in which he totally denied the execution of agreement of sale and the receipt of earnest money. It was alleged that agreement to sell is an act of fraud as Defendant No. 1 had business relations with the Plaintiff who used to raise loan from him and in that process, he used to give him signed blank papers as security for the loan, which he allegedly converted into the agreement to sell. He further alleged that he had taken Rs. One lac. as loan from the Plaintiff on 11.1.2001 which is already repaid on 09.7.2001, therefore, there was no contract subsisting between the parties much-less the alleged agreement to sell which is being enforced by the Plaintiff by way of the present suit. The Plaintiff filed the replication to the written statement of Defendant No. 1. and on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 02.4.2003. The Plaintiff examined Pawan Kumar Deed Writer as PW-1; Daljitram Singh an attesting witness of the agreement to sell and endorsement as PW-2; and himself entered into the witness box as PW-3. Defendant examined himself as DW-1; Gurmit Singh as DW-2; Sukhbir Kaur as DW-3 and Rajan Architect as DW-4. However, there was no evidence in rebuttal led by the parties.

(3.) Both the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact about the execution of agreement to sell and the absence of any fraud as alleged by Defendant No. 1. In this regard, findings recorded in para Nos. 22 and 24 of the learned first Appellate Court are relevant to be mentioned here which are reproduced below: