PREM NATH Vs. SUKHMANDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby, the appeal of the defendant has been partly allowed and the plaintiff has been granted only the alternative relief for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% interest per annum from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 04.06.2002 to sell till its realization.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the suit for specific performance and possession for agreement dated 04.06.2002 (Ex.P-1) was filed alleging that the plaintiff had paid a sum of RS.1,50,000/- as earnest money and it had been settled that the consideration would be at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per killa for 11 kanals of land. The last date of the agreement to be executed was on 03.06.2003 and the said agreement was witnessed by Mahavir Parsad and Jarnail Singh and the deed writer Charan Dass Mittal. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff approached the defendant on 03.06.2003 and informed that he should reach in the office of Sub Registrar, Doda for the performance of his part of the contract but the defendant did not come present. Since on 04.06.2003 there was holiday and on 05.06.2003 plaintiff again went to the office of Sub Registrar but the defendant did not turn up. It is alleged that on the same evening, plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and apprised him what had happened and reprimanded him. The defendant felt sorry for that and requested that he will perform his part of the said agreement shortly. It is also averred in the plaint that the defendant was asked to come present on 15.04.2003. Accordingly, the present suit has been filed for specific performance.

(3.) The defendant-respondent has filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the suit land was the Joint Hindu Family property of the defendant-respondent and his family and it had been purchased with the funds provided by the father of the defendant as he had sold his ancestral land at Village Sangha, Tehsil Mansa. It is further pleaded that the land having been acquired from the ancestral and Joint Hindu Family Nucleus, land cannot be alienated by the defendant and the plaintiff had no right to file the suit. It was specifically alleged that the agreement was forged and fabricated document since the plaintiff and his brother had made certain illegal purchases from the defendant and his brother vide separate sale deeds, and at that time, the plaintiff had obtained his signatures on various blank papers on the pretext that these might be required for purpose of mutation and turn of waters etc.