ANITA KUMARI Vs. MANOHAR LAL SUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-Defendant, Anita Kumari, has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which he accepted the appeal preferred by the Respondent-Plaintiff, Manohar Lal Sud, against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2006 passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, dismissing suit of the Respondent-Plaintiff for possession of the land in dispute measuring 28 marlas situated in village Sutheri, Fatehgarh Road, Tehsil and District, Hoshiarpur, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.11.1991, and decreed his suit.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that Arun Kumar, husband of the Defendant, was the owner of the land in dispute, who agreed to sell the same in his favour for 1,26,000/-, vide agreement dated 11.11.1991 and received 81,000/- as earnest money on the date of execution of the agreement. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed, which was to be executed and got registered after the lifting of the ban, which had been imposed regarding the registration of the sale deeds. That ban was lifted in the year 1999. He approached Arun Kumar many a times with the request to execute the sale deed and to get the same registered after receiving the balance sale consideration of 42,000/-, but every time he took up the excuse to wait for his recovery from the illness. Ultimately, he died on 26.11.2000 and it was told by the Defendant that her husband had executed a Will dated 15.4.2000, thereby bequeathing the land in dispute in her favour. She represented that she was bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and agreed to execute the sale deed after the sanction of the mutation in her favour. To that effect, she also executed the writing dated 27.12.2000 on the back of the original agreement. The mutation was sanctioned in her favour in July, 2001 and thereafter, he approached her for the execution of the sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement but she was not willing to do so. Therefore, he filed suit for specific performance.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Defendant. In her written statement, she admitted that her husband was the owner in possession of the land in dispute, which was bequeathed in her favour. She denied the other contentions and pleaded that the alleged agreement and writing dated 27.12.2000 are forged and fabricated documents. The suit of the Plaintiff is not within time and having not approached the court with clean hands, is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.