SUBHASH CHAND Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court. Subhash Chand plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance for the suit property on the basis of agreement dated 10.10.1995. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 Rajinder Kumar had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and had entered into an agreement to sell dated 10.10.1995 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- . An earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- was paid and the final date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 10.10.1996. As per terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 10.10.1995, it was agreed that, if, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, it would be open for the plaintiff to get the same specifically enforced or to recover double the amount of earnest money. On the other hand in the eventuality of the plaintiff failing to perform his part of the contract the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. It was pleaded that by mutual consent the date for registration of the sale deed was extended to 10.12.1996 and thereafter to 25.3.1997. Plaintiff pleaded that on the last date so fixed i.e. 25.3.1997 the plaintiff was present in the office of Sub Registrar, Jagadhari along with balance consideration amount but defendant No. 1 did not come present. A legal notice was issued the very next date i.e on 26.3.1997 calling upon defendant No. 1 to get the sale deed registered. Thereafter, another notice was sent on 14.3.2000 but having evoked no response from the defendant No. 1, he approached defendant No. 1 and it was disclosed to him that the suit property had already been sold to defendant No. 2 on 13.2.1997. Accordingly, the plaintiff pleaded that the sale in favour of defendant No. 2 was illegal and specific performance of the agreement dated 10.10.1995 was sought.

(2.) Defendant No. 1, Rajinder Kumar took a plea of denial. The agreement to sell was stated to be forged and it was stated that on account of a previous litigation between the father of defendant No. 1 and one Fakir Chand in which the plaintiff had acted as a mediator, certain documents had been got signed from him in the shape of blank stamp papers and the same may have been misused to set up the agreement to sell. Defendant No. 1, however, admitted to having sold the suit property to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte by the Trial Court.

(3.) The parties went to trial on following issues framed by the Trial Court:-