SATISH KUMAR Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant has preferred the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below at Rewari, whereby the suit for possession by way of specific performance has been decreed by the Civil Court at Rewari on 19/7/2016 and upheld on 7/1/2020 by the Appellate Court.

(2.) The agreement to sell in question was dtd. 13/10/2011 regarding property bearing house No.630 situated at Arjun Nagar, Rewari, Tehsil and District, Rewari for the land measuring 5 marlas described in the head note of the suit. The sale consideration for the property in question was Rs.22,00,000.00 and Rs.4,75,000.00 was received vide cheque dtd. 12/10/2011 and Rs.25,000.00 was paid in cash and thus, a total sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 was received as earnest money by the defendant-appellant. The last date to execute the sale deed was 31/3/2012 and the appellant was to obtain NOC from the concerned authorities. Prior to the cut-off date, on 13/2/2012, an additional sum of Rs.3,50,000.00 was received vide cheque. In order to show his readiness and willingness, respondent got prepared a demand draft of Rs.13,50,000.00 on 29/3/2012 for payment of balance amount and purchased stamp papers of Rs.1,54,000.00 on 26/3/2012 for the purpose of execution of the sale deed. He had put in appearance before the Sub-Registrar on 2/4/2012 as 31/3/2012 and 1/4/2012 were holidays. Since the defendant-appellant did not come present, a legal notice dtd. 16/4/2012 (Ex.PW-1/1) had also been served upon him for executing the sale deed. The Civil Suit was filed on 24/4/2012, immediately thereafter.

(3.) In the written statement filed, the defence of the defendant-appellant was that he had not entered into any agreement to sell regarding the property in dispute and the same was a forged and fabricated document and did not bear his signatures. It was also alleged that he had moved a complaint dtd. 2/5/2012 to the police. There was denial regarding receiving the earnest money both vide cheque and cash and the plea was that the plaintiff had approached him to obtain the property in dispute on rent and under that impression, signatures were got obtained which were papers of lease.