GAMDOOR SINGH Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 4.09.2009, while declining the relief of specific performance, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as the plaintiff) for an alternative relief for recovery of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, since 7.6.2002 till the date of institution of the suit along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Whereas, the District Judge accepted the appeal and passed the decree for specific performance of the contract. As such it is defendant's appeal.

(2.) On 7.6.2002, the plaintiff Ajaib Singh entered into an agreement to purchase the land measuring 24 kanals i.e. 480/511 th share out of 255 kanals 11 Marlas, as fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint from the defendant at the rate of Rs.20,5000 per acre. Vide said agreement, the defendant after receiving a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff, agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 25.5.2005 on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.2,65,000/-. It was also termed vide the said agreement that in case of failure on the part of the defendant to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover rupees seven lacs. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He also served upon him a notice on 18.5.2005 so also approached him personally on 20.5.2005 and requested him to come present before the Sub-Registrar on 25.5.2005 i.e. the stipulated date and the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-registrar on the date fixed, whereas the defendant failed to fulfill his obligations, which compelled him to file the suit.

(3.) Defendant contested the cause by filing written statement. Besides, various legal and technical objections raised by him, it was also averred that the agreement is forged and fabricated document, and is without consideration. It was prepared at the instance of M/s Chiman Lal and sons, Commission Agents Pattran, in connivance with the attesting witnesses and one partner of the said firm. It is also the case of the defendant that actually he used to sell his crop through M/s Chiman Lal and Sons but no accounts were rendered to him by the said firm. It was also alleged that since the land under the agreement was already lying mortgage with the bank, as such, the defendant was not competent to sell the land, consequently, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. Replication was also filed.