NARINDERJIT SINGH Vs. NORTH STAR ESTATE PROMOTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby, while accepting the appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been modified and a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 22.10.1996 has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of this appeal, as per the averments made in the plaint, are that the appellant through his attorney (defendant No.2-Gurcharan Singh) entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land measuring 51 Bighas 9 Biswas with the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of 14,00,000/- per acre vide agreement dated 22.10.1996 and defendant No.2 received a sum of 1,00,000/- as earnest money on behalf of the appellant and further executed a separate receipt in this regard. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff-respondent was to make a payment of 9,00,000/- to the appellant on or before 23.11.1996 and after receiving the said amount, the appellant was to deliver the possession of the land in question to the plaintiff-respondent for the purpose of development activities. It is the further case of the plaintiff/respondent that he was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. On 23.11.1996, the plaintiff-respondent was having the amount of 9,00,000/- for payment of the same to the appellant. On 22.11.1996, the appellant was requested to receive the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff-respondent. However, the appellant put off the matter. On 23.11.1996, the plaintiff-respondent also got issued a demand draft of 9,00,000/- bearing No.BC/F32234 dated 23.11.1996 from the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 10, Chandigarh and also sent a message to the appellant to receive the said amount. However, the appellant did not come to the office of the plaintiff-respondent for receiving the aforesaid amount. It is the further case of the plaintiff-respondent that he along with one Vijay Bhardwaj had gone to the house of the appellant to make the payment of 9,00,000/-. However, the appellant did not receive the said amount. Thus, the appellant committed breach of agreement. The plaintiff-respondent also got issued a notice dated 24.11.1996 upon the appellant through its counsel but the appellant refused to accept the said notice. As per agreement, the plaintiff-respondent was to make further payment of 10,00,000/- to the appellant on or before 24.12.1996 but the appellant refused to receive the said payment. It was agreed between the parties that the appellant would execute the sale deed regarding 2 acres of land out of the suit land after receiving the payment of 18,00,000/- equal to the value of 2 acres. The sale deed regarding 3 acres of land was to be executed after receiving the amount of 42,00,000/- equal to the value of 3 acres and last and final sale deed regarding the land measuring 31 Bighas 9 Biswas was to be executed and registered by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after receiving the balance sale consideration and the earnest money of 2,00,000/- was to be adjusted at the time of execution of the last sale deed. The plaintiff-respondent had always ready and willing and was still ready and willing to perform its part of contract but the appellant did not cooperate with the plaintiff-respondent for getting necessary clearance certificates from PUDA and Income Tax Authorities for the purpose of execution and registration of sale deed. The plaintiff/respondent made repeated requests to the appellant to execute the sale deed regarding the suit land as per the terms and conditions of the agreement but to no effect. Hence the present suit.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice of the suit, the appellant put in appearance and filed written statement contesting the suit raising various preliminary objections. On merits, execution of the agreement of sale by defendant No.2 as attorney of appellant was denied. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2-Gurcharan Singh was an old and sick person and at that time he was not in a position to understand the nature of any such transaction. The rate of land prevailing in the village at the relevant time was 42,00,000/- per acre and there was no question of execution of agreement to sell by defendant No.2 thereby agreeing to sell the land at the rate of 14,00,000/- per acre. Receipt of earnest money of 1,00,000/- by defendant No.2 was also denied. It was further pleaded that in fact the plaintiff-respondent in collusion with Colonel Harjit Singh and Vijay Bhardwaj wanted to grab the valuable property of the appellant. Colonel Harjit Singh was close relative of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 was having full confidence in him but both the witnesses colluded with the plaintiff-respondent and defrauded and cheated the old aged, sick and infirm person. The plaintiff-respondent did not make payment of earnest money to defendant No.2. In fact the appellant was away to Delhi on 22.10.1996 and taking advantage of this fact, the plaintiff-respondent through its Director colluded with Colonel Harjit Singh and Vijay Bhardwaj had hatched a criminal conspiracy to defraud the appellant; forged the agreement of sale dated 22.10.1996. It was further denied that the plaintiff/respondent was ready and willing to make payment of 9,00,000/- on 23.11.1996. It was further pleaded that false documents were prepared by the plaintiff-respondent in this regard. The remaining averments of the plaint were also denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.