BALWANT RAI Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who is aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the only relief that has been granted to him is the decree for recovery of Rs. 40,000/- from the defendant in a suit for a specific performance which was to be paid within 4 months vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009. On failure of the appellant to pay decretal amount within the prescribed period, interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit, i.e., 02.06.2005 till its actual realisation was granted by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), now, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. In appeal, the District Judge modified the judgment and decree to the extent that the plaintiff was held entitled to the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement to sell dated 30.11.2004 till its actual payment with no orders as to costs. The case in brief is that the suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed on the strength of an agreement dated 30.11.2004 for the house constructed on around 4 marlas of land for Rs. 1,00,000/- and in the alternative, suit for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- has been sought along with relief of permanent injunction. The last date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 30.05.2005 and in pursuance of the agreement, the defendant had received Rs. 40,000/- from the plaintiff vide separate receipt of the same date. The plaintiff pleaded that he remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nawanshahr on 30.05.2005 along with the balance sale consideration and registration expenses but the defendant did not turn up to perform his part of the agreement, and accordingly, he got marked his presence.

(2.) Defendant, in written statement, took various objections including concealment of facts, locus standi and also the plea that she was not owner of the house but she is residing in the suit property. It was alleged that she took a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff and mentioned double the amount in the agreement. The agreement was executed as a security of the loan in favour of the plaintiff but the same was converted into agreement to sell. The receipt of earnest money was denied and prayed that the suit be dismissed.

(3.) Plaintiff examined as many as 4 witnesses including himself whereas defendant examined herself as DW 1.