SUCHA SINGH Vs. MALKIAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT no. 1 Sucha Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed this second appeal. Respondent no. 1 plaintiff Malkiat Singh filed suit against defendant no. 1-appellant and State Bank of Patiala (defendant No.

(2.) /proforma respondent no. 2) for possession of the suit land measuring 7 kanals 61/2 marlas by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.6.2003 alleging that defendant no. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff @ Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and received Rs. 1,40,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed upto 15.6.2004. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but defendant no. 1 committed breach thereof. Plaintiff attended the office of Sub Registrar on 15.6.2004 with requisite amount for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement but defendant no. 1 did not turn up. 2. Defendant no. 1 broadly denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that he had borrowed Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.6.1998 and repaid Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff on 18.6.2001 and the plaintiff got sale agreement for the balance due amount (of interest ?). The defendant further paid Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiff on 30.5.2003 and nothing remained due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The impugned agreement has been manipulated by the plaintiff. No amount was paid by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 for the impugned agreement. Plaintiff might have obtained signatures or thumb impression of defendant no. 1 by misleading. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Plaintiff to prove the impugned agreement has examined Jaswant Singh, Deed Writer, PW1 who scribed the agreement, Baldev Singh, PW3 and Som Nath, PW4 both attesting witnesses of the agreement and himself appeared as PW2. All of them have broadly stated according to the plaintiff's version.