BHOLA SINGH Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court. Briefly noticed, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 2.5.2007 stated to have been executed by the defendant in his favour with regard to land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situated at village Daun Khurd, Tehsil & Distt. Patiala along with the right of passage and motor connection of 7.5 BHP. Plaintiff also prayed for the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from alienating/transferring of the suit land in any manner. It was pleaded that the agreement to sell dated 2.5.2007 had been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant in regard to the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- and such agreement was executed in the presence of the attesting witnesses. An amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid towards earnest money and the last date for execution of the sale deed was stipulated to be on or before 2.5.2008. The plaintiff pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that he had remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Patiala on 2.5.2008 along with the balance sale consideration as also the amount for the purchase of stamp papers and other expenses but the defendant failed to come present. Accordingly, plaintiff had got his presence marked by moving an application and getting an affidavit attested on such date i.e. 2.5.2008. A legal notice dated 6.5.2008 was also got issued by the plaintiff through counsel calling upon the defendant to get the sale deed executed but as the defendant had refused to get the needful done and was threatening to alienate the suit property as such the suit had been instituted.

(2.) The suit was contested in terms of filing of a written statement by the defendant taking up a plea that no such agreement to sell pertaining to the suit property had been entered into. It was stated that the plaintiff and defendant had enjoyed good relations and by taking advantage of the same the plaintiff had obtained the thumb impression of the defendant over the blank stamp papers so as to facilitate the sanctioning of a loan from the Cooperative Bank. It was stated that the plaintiff had used such stamp papers to forge and fabricate the alleged agreement to sell dated 2.5.2007. The defendant denied receiving any earnest money and stated that there was no intention on his part to sell the suit property at any point of time.

(3.) Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-