RAJ KUMAR Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Raj Kumar has filed this second appeal. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Baljit Singh against defendant appellant. Plaintiff alleged that defendant agreed to sell suit property to the plaintiff for Rs. 50,000/- and received Rs. 40,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 15.11.2002. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 14.11.2004. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant committed breach thereof. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit property by specific performance of the agreement to sell.

(2.) The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that defendant never agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that defendant had borrowed Rs. 5000/- only from one Jasmer Singh but Jasmer Singh managed to forge agreement to mortgage for Rs. 30,000/- and fictitiously mentioned therein to have paid Rs. 25,000/- as earnest money to the defendant. The plaintiff is a Financier and is habitual of forging false and frivolous documents. The defendant borrowed Rs. 25,000/- in November, 2002 and had been paying interest thereon @ 5% per month against the said amount but the plaintiff took some receipts from the defendant on the pretext of reflecting the same in income tax records and also issued some receipts to the defendant.

(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2011, instead of decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement, decreed the plaintiff's suit for alternative relief of recovery of earnest money of Rs. 40,000/- with pendente lite and future interest. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.2011 and thereby plaintiff's suit has been decreed for possession of the suit property by specific performance of the impugned agreement. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant second appeal.