RAM KALA Vs. WAKIL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Kala defendant having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff Wakil Chand filed suit against defendantappellant for possession of the suit land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 9.5.2002 alleging that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs 1,29,188/- and received Rs 50,000/- as earnest money and executed aforesaidRegular Second Appeal No. 2059 of 2011(O&M) -2- agreement. Sale deed was to be executed upto 20.5.2003. Accordingly, on 13.4.2003, the plaintiff approached the defendant for execution of the sale deed on or before the stipulated date. The defendant assured to execute the sale deed on 19.5.2003. Accordingly, plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 19.5.2003 but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff again approached the defendant who promised to execute the sale deed on 21.5.2003. Accordingly, the plaintiff again remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 21.5.2003 but the defendant did not come present. The plaintiff also served notice dated 10.5.2005 on the defendant to perform his part of the contract but the defendant did not do so although the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff or having executed the impugned agreement or having received any earnest money. The defendant alleged that market price of the suit land is about Rs 7 lacs per acre. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff and his brother and their father were running joint business of commission agent. Defendant used to sell his crop through them. They did not settle the account of the defendant. They also obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on blank stamp papers on the pretext of claiming bonus for the crop sold by the defendant but no bonus was paid by them to the defendant. On the contrary, the plaintiff and his brother and father also kept on obtaining thumb impressions of the defendant on various stamp papers and in registersRegular Second Appeal No. 2059 of 2011(O&M) - 3- of deed writers. The same might have been misused by the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also raised.