JITENDER Vs. RAJBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant of the case is in this appeal against the judgment of reversal qua the relief for specific performance. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before learned trial Court.

(2.) (a) Plaintiff- Rajbir Singh (now respondent) filed the suit bearing registration No.CS/54408/2013 titled 'Rajbir Singh Vs. Jitender' seeking decree for possession by way of specific performance of the registered agreement to sell dtd. 16/10/2006 with regard to suit property.

(3.) Defendant in his written statement denied execution of any agree- ment. He alleged agreement dtd. 16/10/2006 relied by plaintiff to be forged and fabricated. Defendant further denied receipt of any earnest money. According to him, plaintiff was in the need of money and had approached him (defendant) for that purpose and received an amount of Rs.21.00 lacs in cash on 16/10/2006 regarding which a writing was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant but original writing/affidavit was taken away by the plaintiff from the defendant by playing fraud. It was submitted further that as no agreement was executed, so there was no question of making appearance before the Sub-Registrar, Dharuhera on 16/10/2006. Defendant denied to have affixed his thumb impression over the leaf of the first page of the agreement. He denied having ever agreed to seek partition of his land or to serve notice to the plaintiff two months thereafter. As per defendant, he being co-sharer in possession to the extent of 1009/7382 share out of total land measuring 369 kanal 2 Marla, so he is not in possession over specific killa numbers and so, possession of no killa numbers was handed over to the plaintiff. Receipt of the legal notice dtd. 4/9/2012 is admitted but it is submitted that it was duly replied, wherein he (defendant) had specifically pleaded that plaintiff had taken loan of Rs.21.00 lacs from him; and that agreement was forged and fabricated. With this stand and controverting all other averments of the plaint, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.