SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal, challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.3.2001 has been decreed.

(2.) As per the averments made, the appellant-defendant who was owner of the suit land, entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.3.2001 with the respondent-plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and received Rs.6,50,000/- as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 20.9.2001. The date of execution of the sale deed was extended to 20.3.2002 and the appellant received an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, for which he executed a separate receipt. On 20.3.2002, the appellant again expressed his inability to execute the sale deed and consequently, time was further extended upto 20.9.2002. For the said extension of time, the appellant further received an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- vide a separate receipt. However, on the stipulated date i.e. on 20.9.2002, the defendant failed to turn up before the Sub Registrar to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant-appellant filed written statement, raising various preliminary objections. It was specifically stated by the appellant that he was in need of loan, which he raised from the plaintiff-respondent and as a security of the loan amount, executed an agreement dated 20.3.2001 in favour of the respondent on receipt of the loan of Rs.6,00,000/-, whereas the agreement was executed for Rs.6,50,000/- with the understanding that the loan amount would be returned with interest within a period of six months. It is the further case of the appellant that at the time of taking loan, he had signed certain blank papers without any intention to sell his land and the plaintiff converted the same into receipts with the ulterior motive to usurp his property. The receipts dated 20.3.2002 and 20.9.2001 are forged receipts and no amount was received by him on the said dates. Since the appellant never intended to sell the property, no question of readiness and willingness arises. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.