JASPAL SINGH Vs. R.S. PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is regular second appeal by the defendant against whom learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar has decreed a suit brought by R.S. Puri, plaintiff -respondent for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 3.9.2005 vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2010 and whose appeal against the said judgment and decree has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar [Mohali] vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2013. This has been a suit brought by R.S. Puri, the plaintiff with respect to the land measuring 16 kanals. He has claimed that the defendant entered into an agreement to sell 16 kanals of land in favour of the plaintiff on 3.9.2005 at the rate of Rs. 11,00,000/ - per acre. The defendant received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses and an agreement in this regard was scribed which was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed that the defendant would execute and get registered sale deed upto 15.4.2006. He also agreed to hand over possession of the land in question after getting the property demarcated. It was further agreed that in case the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract then the amount paid as earnest money was to stand forfeited. In case, the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract, it would be open to the plaintiff to obtain double the amount paid as earnest money or to get sale deed registered through court alongwith damages suffered by him. The plaintiff contacted the defendant number of times before 15.4.2006 to execute the sale deed, but he did not perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Majri on 17.4.2006 along with requisite amount to be paid to the defendant as 15th and 16th April, 2006 were holidays. The plaintiff got his presence marked before the Executive Magistrate, Majri. As the defendant did not execute the sale deed despite request, the suit was brought.

(2.) THE defendant, by way of his written statement, had questioned the maintainability of the suit in the present form. He denied any agreement between him and the plaintiff for sale of the suit land. It was also claimed that he did not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court. He has denied any agreement to have been entered into by him in favour of the plaintiff. According to him, the agreement of sale is a result of forgery committed by the defendant. According to him, the market rate of the suit property is more than Rs. 30,00,000/ - per acre. He has even denied having received any earnest money. The agreement is again claimed to be forged and fictitious document. It is also averred that he was not competent to execute the sale deed regarding the suit property because the court had already passed injunction order restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land in a suit brought by his wife, who had filed the suit for maintenance and charge was to be created on the suit property. He has lastly submitted that the plaintiff had never been ready and willing to purchase the suit property as he had no money for the same. On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues: - -

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff is/was ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP