BALVIR SINGH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, Vijay Kumar, plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.8.2001 against Balbir Singh, defendant no.1 (appellant herein) and defendants no.2 and 3 for possession of the suit land upon setting aside the alleged sale deeds dated 17.6.2004 and 23.6.2004 executed by defendant no.1 i.e. Balbir Singh in favour of defendants no.2 and 3. In the alternative, prayer for recovery of Rs.4,80,000/- was also made. The plaintiff had pleaded that the defendant no.1 had agreed to sell 4 kanals 13 marlas of land situated in village Mehndipur for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,40,000/- and had entered into an agreement to sell dated 31.8.2001. Earnest money of Rs.2,40,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and 31.1.2003 was fixed as the date for execution of the sale deed upon receiving the remaining sale price i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-. Defendant no.1 had agreed to get the suit land cleared of all incumbrances. Prior to the execution of the agreement to sell dated 31.1.2001, defendant no.1 had mortgaged 2 kanals 16 marlas of land with the Punjab Agricultural Development Bank, Balachaur, which he was liable to re-deem prior to 31.1.2003. Plaintiff pleaded that upon obtaining the copy of jamabandi on 3.1.2003, he became aware that instead of getting the land re-deemed from the bank, defendant no.1 had further mortgaged 2 kanals and 16 marlas of land with the aforementioned bank. Accordingly, plaintiff served upon defendant no.1 a legal notice dated 6.1.2003 calling upon him to get the suit land re-deemed prior to 31.1.2003 i.e. the last date for execution of sale deed as stipulated in the agreement to sell dated 31.7.2001. Defendant no.1, however, replied to the legal notice on 28.1.2003 denying the very execution of the agreement. Plaintiff pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had even got his presence recorded in the office of Sub Registrar, Balachaur on 31.1.2003. Even after 31.1.2003 the plaintiff had approached defendant no.1 for getting the sale deed executed upon which defendant no.1 had assured regarding getting the suit land re-deemed within a short span of time. Later on, plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 with a malafide intention and in connivance with his father, defendant no.2 and his son defendant no.3 had executed the sale deed dated 17.6.2004 in favour of his father and thereafter on 23.6.2004 in favour of his son. The plaintiff pleaded that the aforementioned two sale deeds were mere paper transactions and were a sham with the oblique objective to avoid the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances the plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance praying that defendants no.2 and 3 are liable to join defendant no.1 in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant no.1 filed a written statement setting up a case of denial. It was stated that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document and even the earnest money of Rs.2,40,000/- was never received. Defendant no.1 further set up a plea that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff at the instance of one Satwinder Singh, who is a Patwari in the revenue department and whose wife is President of Municipal Council, Balachaur but on account of certain political rivalry between defendant no.1 and the wife of Satwinder Singh, accordingly, suit had been filed to grab the land in dispute. On the other hand, defendants no.2 and 3 submitted a joint written statement taking up a plea that they were bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and that they had no notice of the agreement to sell dated 31.8.2001 between the plaintiff and defendant no.1.