MAKHAN SINGH Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 321 and 484 of 1973, as both of them arise out of the same judgment of the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 50,000/-; Rs. 25,000/- paid by him as the earnest money to the defendants plus Rs. 25,000/- as damages which the defendants had agreed to pay to him in case of non-performance of the agreement dated August 24, 1971, Exhibit P-1, by them. It was alleged that the defendants executed the said agreement and thereby agreed to sell the land measuring 51 kanals 10 marlas to him for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. They received Rs. 25,000/- from him as earnest money and agreed to get the sale deed registered in his favour by February 5, 1972. It was stipulated that if they failed to get the sale effected, they would refund the earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- and would also pay another sum of Rs. 25,000/- as damages to him. It was also provided that in case the plaintiff did not get the sale effected, the earnest money would be forfeited to the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he came to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jullundur, daily from October 4, 1972 to October 9, 1972, but none of the defendants arrived there to get the sale deed registered. He served a notice, Exhibit P-2, upon them but they refused to accept the same. The case of the plaintiff was that as the defendants had failed to perform their part of the agreement, he was entitled to the refund of the earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- and also to an equal amount as damages from them. The defendants resisted the suit and pleaded that they never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of the land and never received any amount as earnest money. They maintained that if any document, as alleged by the plaintiff, was proved to have been thumb-marked, it was without consideration and was fraudulent. They also averred that when the factum of the fraud came to their knowledge, they applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, for enquiry. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed the present suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on the record.