SEWAK SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. R. S. A. No. 512 of 2011 and R.S.A. No. 513 of 2011 both titled Sewak Singh and another v. Baldev Singh, as both these appeals have arisen out of a single suit. These are second appeals by defendants by Sewak Singh and Sukhdev Singh sons of Malkiat Singh. Suit against them was filed by respondent-plaintiff Baldev Singh alleging that the defendants agreed to sell the suit land measuring 36 kanals 17 marlas to the plaintiff @ Rs. 1,38,000/- per acre, for total consideration of Rs. 6,34,600/- and received Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 11.01.2000. Sale deed was to be executed up to 15.03.2000. However, the defendants failed to get the mortgage of the suit land redeemed and therefore, on 13.03.2000, the defendants, after receiving further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, made endorsement on the back of the agreement extending the date for execution of the sale deed up to 21.05.2002. Accordingly, plaintiff visited the office of Sub Registrar on 21.05.2002 with requisite money to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but the defendants failed to turn up and committed breach of the agreement. Plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought specific performance of the impugned agreement and in the alternative, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 6,34,600/- i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/- as refund of earnest money and Rs. 34,600/- as damages. The plaintiff also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(2.) The defendants, while broadly denying the plaint averments, pleaded that they had been selling their crops at the shop of M/s Manjinder Singh Sohan Singh being run by Manjinder Singh, who is son of brother of plaintiffs wife. At that time, plaintiff and Manjinder Singh, on the basis of false entries in account books, claimed huge amount to be outstanding against the defendants, although no such amount was taken by the defendants. On this pretext, the plaintiff obtained signatures/thumb impressions of the defendants on blank stamp papers, documents affixed with revenue stamps and in the register. The said documents have been subsequently converted into impugned agreement to sell. The defendants denied having agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff or having received any earnest money from him. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, vide judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009, instead of granting decree for specific performance of the impugned agreement, decreed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- (earnest money) along with interest. Against judgment and decree of the trial court, both parties preferred separate first appeals. Learned Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide common judgment and decrees dated 26.08.2010, dismissed the appeal preferred by defendants and allowed the appeal preferred by plaintiff and decreed the suit for specific performance of the impugned agreement. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed these two second appeals because there were two first appeals.