KULBHUSHAN PARKASH Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2010 passed by Sh. B.R. Garg, Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Ropar, vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiffappellant against the judgment and decree dated 6.10.2008 passed by Mrs. Jaswinder Sheemar, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, Kulbhushan Parkash plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.10.1995 with the allegation that Agya Kaur defendant No.1 executed agreement dated 31.10.1995 in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/-. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to Agya Kaur defendant No.1 on 31.10.1995. The remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. 10.2.1997. On 10.2.1997 defendant No.1 did not come present in the office of Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff got attested an affidavit from Executive Magistrate. Later on defendant No.1 connived with defendant No.2, who is son of defendant No.1 and suffered a consent decree in his favour on 12.10.1996 by playing fraud in order to avoid the execution of agreement to sell dated 31.10.1995. During the pendency of the present suit defendant No.1 received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- vide cheque dated 6.9.2000 regarding which agreement dated 1.9.2000 was also executed. Hence on accrual of cause of action, the suit was filed.

(3.) On put to notice defendants appeared and filed written statement to the effect that the agreement of sale is forgery and has been created to cheat defendant No.2 who is lawful owner of the property by virtue of Civil Court decree dated 12.10.1996. The father of the plaintiff stated to be the tenant under Agya Kaur prior to February 1994 and after the death of father of the plaintiff, the status of the plaintiff cannot be more than a trespasser as the tenancy is not inheritable. Receiving of Rs. 25,000/- as earnest money was denied and question of coming of defendant No.1 to the office of Sub Registrar on 10.2.1997 was also denied. By way of filing amended written statement by defendant No.2, payment of full consideration was also stated to be questionable.