BALBIR SINGH Vs. JAGTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, Regular Second Appeal No. 3931 of 2014 and Regular Second Appeal No. 4760 of 2014 shall stand disposed of. Learned counsel, appearing for the parties, are common and they are agreed that both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Learned trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court although passed separate judgments of even date, however, in view of the arguments, 1 of 5 Regular Second Appeal No. 3931 of 2014 (O&M) AND 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 4760 of 2014 (O&M) the issue arising for consideration is common. The plaintiff/appellants, in both the appeals, have filed regular second appeals against the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. Both the appellants are also appellants in another appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed two suits for passing a decree of specific performance of the agreements to sell dated 13.10.2005. In both the suits, it is claimed that defendants-Jagtar Singh, in one suit and Hamir Singh and Surjit Singh, in another suit, had agreed to sell the land measuring 9 bighas and 10 biswas in one suit and 13 bighas 11 biswas in second suit. It was agreed that the land shall be sold at the rate of ? 1,16,000/- per bigha. Under one agreement to sell, ? 50,000/- was stated to have been paid as earnest money, whereas in second agreement ? 1,00,000/- was stated to have been paid as earnest money. The parties had agreed to execute the sale deeds by 01.07.2006. It will be significant to note here that Jagtar Singh, defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No. 38 is son of Hamir Singh, wheres Surjit Singh is brother of Hamir Singh. In other words, one agreement to sell is with two brothers, whereas the second agreement to sell by Jagtar Singh, son of Hamir Singh and nephew of Surjit Singh.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that agreements to sell have been drafted on blank signed/thumb impressions. It has been pleaded that in fact, Surjit Singh had borrowed a sum of ? 1,50,000/- as a loan from plaintiff-Balbir Singh and pronote and receipt were executed on 12.12.2005. However, Balbir Singh had put a condition that the loan would be advanced only if the defendants agreed to give blank thumb marked/signed stamp papers as security. Since the defendant was in dire 2 of 5 Regular Second Appeal No. 3931 of 2014 (O&M) AND 3 Regular Second Appeal No. 4760 of 2014 (O&M) need of money, therefore, next day after purchasing the stamp papers and putting their thumb impressions and signatures, the stamp papers were handed over to Balbir Singh,. They further pleaded that there is a prior agreement to sell in favour of Parbatjit Singh in one case and Randhir Singh in another case dated 09.12.2005. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreements to sell, sale deeds have also been executed on 29.12.2005 and 30.12.2005. Parbatjit Singh and Randhir Singh have also filed separate written statement claiming that they are bonafide purchasers.