RAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. SARDARI LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal brought by defendant No. 2 against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge [Junior Division] Yamuna Nagar vide which the suit of Sardari Lal for symbolical possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.12.1999 in respect of house bearing plot No. 129, khasra No. 447 situated in Mauza Gobindpuri, Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar, properly detailed in the headnote of the plaint, has been decreed and the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which the appeal preferred by the appellant -defendant No. 2 has been dismissed. Shakuntla Rani, defendant No. 1, was the owner in possession of the suit property, the construction of which was incomplete. She entered into an agreement of sale of the said plot in favour of the plaintiff on 13.12.1999 against a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,35,000/ -. Agreement of sale was reduced to writing and was executed between the parties in the presence of the witnesses. Total sale consideration was paid to defendant No. 1 vide receipt of the same date. Possession of the plot was also delivered to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 on the same date. It was agreed that the sale deed in respect of the suit property shall be executed and got registered in favour of the plaintiff as and when desired by him. After obtaining possession of the plot of the incomplete house, the plaintiff got the construction completed at his own expenses. He also obtained an electric connection in his name from the electricity department and has also obtained a telephone connection for that property. Defendant No. 1 was requested several times to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour. However, she kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendant No. 2, who is a stranger, has started claiming to have purchased the suit property from defendant No. 1 by way of registered sale deed and has started threatening the plaintiff of forcible dispossession and, hence, the suit.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 has denied having executed any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. She has, however, claimed that on 9.12.1999, she executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff because he has been very close to defendant No. 1. The said power of attorney was cancelled on 20.12.1999. Defendant No. 1 has claimed herself to be an old lady of the age of 70 years and has claimed that the plaintiff might have obtained her signatures on some paper fraudulently. She has denied any amount to have ever been paid to her by the plaintiff. She has claimed that the plaintiff prayed for allowing him to use the house for one month and he was allowed to do so on account of which, he came in possession over the suit property. She has denied him to have completed the construction. She has, however, admitted that the electric connection for the house has been obtained by the plaintiff, but she has claimed that it was done by him fraudulently.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by learned trial court.