(1.) The plaintiff Sushila Devi filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 27.12.2005. The defendant Jai Dayal made a counter claim for declaration that the above agreement for sale was a forged document and not binding on the defendant. The defendant also sought for permanent injunction as against the plaintiff by way of counter claim. The Courts below decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim raised by the defendant. Hence the present second appeal by the defendant.
(2.) The plaintiff Sushila Devi has contended that the defendant executed the agreement for sale on 23.6.2005 agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs per acre. The defendant also received a sum of Rs. 1 lac as earnest money. A sum of Rs. 4 lacs was paid on 6.10.2005. On 27.12.2005, a further sum of Rs. 1,33,000.00 was paid to the defendant on his demand. A fresh agreement was executed on 27.12.2005 after receiving the above detailed earnest money of Rs. 6,33,000.00. The time for execution of the sale deed was fixed on 30.6.2007. Alleging that the defendant has secretly purchased stamp papers for execution of sale deed in favour of a third party, the plaintiff laid the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit alleging that the earlier agreement for sale dated 23.6.2005 was cancelled and the amount of Rs. 4 lacs paid by the plaintiff was returned to the husband of the plaintiff. A sum of Rs. 1 lac was to be returned within 10 days. In order of complete some loan transaction the plaintiff and her husband obtained thumb impression of the defendant on blank papers. The agreement dated 27.12.2005 was illegal, null and void and not binding upon the defendant. The defendant also made a counter claim for permanent injunction and also for a declaration that the agreement entered into between the parties were not binding upon the defendant.