ISHWAR DUTT Vs. SAROJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-Ishwar Dutt having lost in both the Courts below has tiled the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Saroj Rani filed suit against defendant-appellant for possession of the suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.04.2001. Plaintiff alleged that the disputed residential plot was allotted to defendant by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) vide allotment letter No. 4306 dated 06.05.1994. Registered conveyance deed dated 08.05.2004 of the suit properly has been executed by HUDA in favour of defendant. The defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs. 73,000/- and received the entire sale price and executed agreement dated 26.04.2001. Actual possession of the suit property was also, delivered to the plaintiff at the time of agreement. Since conveyance deed by defendant in favour of plaintiff could not be executed till expiry of ten years from the date of allotment, defendant executed registered special power of attorney in favour of plaintiff's husband Suraj Bhan authorizing him to execute and get registered sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. However vide notice dated 28.06.2004, defendant cancelled the special power of attorney in favour of plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the defendant committed breach thereof.

(2.) The defendant denied having agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff or having received any sale consideration or having executed the impugned agreement. It was pleaded that the defendant worked as Carpenter in the house of plaintiff's husband many times and on account of confidence, defendant executed power of attorney in favour of plaintiff's husband to get the conveyance deed of the suit property executed in favour of defendant from HUDA, but it was wrongly mentioned in the power of attorney that the document was executed for sale of plot in favour of plaintiff. Signatures of defendant were also obtained on stamp papers, now styled as impugned agreement. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal.