IQBAL SINGH Vs. AJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court whereby, his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 25.12.2003 has been decreed for an alternative relief of Rs. 2,10,000/- along with interest and the relief of specific performance of the agreement has been declined while accepting the appeal against the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court.

(2.) As per the averments, defendant/ respondent No.1 was the owner of plot No.1173, Sector 79, Mohali, measuring 125 square yards. The said was allotted to defendant/respondent No.1 by the PUDA authorities. Defendant/respondent No.2 represented to the plaintiff/appellant that he was duly authorized by defendant/respondent No.1 to enter into an agreement to sell the aforesaid plot. On his assurance, plaintiff/appellant entered into an agreement dated 25.12.2003 in respect of the plot in question for a total price of Rs. 4,35,000/- plus Rs. 1,04,688/- i.e. an amount of 25% paid to PUDA, thus, the total sale consideration was Rs. 5,39,688/- and the plaintiff/appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as earnest money, in the presence of witnesses. The last date for executing the sale deed was fixed as 5.2.2004. However, the same was extended to 15.3.2004 and another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff/appellant to defendant/respondents No.1 and 2. In this manner, out of the total sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- was paid. It is further case of the plaintiff/appellant that defendant/respondents No.1 and 2 failed to perform their part of agreement to sell and thus necessity arose to file the suit.

(3.) Upon notice defendant/respondents appeared. Defendant/respondent No.1 filed separate written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiff/appellant admitting that he was allotted the plot in question. However, he denied the agreement between the plaintiff/appellant and him. Defendant/respondent No.1 further denied receipt of earnest money from the plaintiff/appellant. He also denied the execution of the agreement in question. It was further submitted that he never agreed to sell the plot in question and the agreement in question was a false and frivolous document which was never executed by him. It was further submitted that he never authorized defendant/respondent No.2 to enter into an agreement to sell and after that the plaintiff/appellant had entered into agreement with a person who was not the owner of the plot that will not entitle the plaintiff/appellant to claim the plot in question by filing the suit for specific performance. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.