SITA RANI Vs. VIJAY SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 2 (now appellant), who claims herself to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated 24.08.2000 executed in her favour by respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 1 in the suit), has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19.12.2009 whereby suit of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 24.01.2000 executed by defendant No. 1 (now respondent No. 2) in his favour has been decreed and the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2012 of the first appellate Court whereby appeal filed by defendant No. 2 (now appellant) against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed. In nutshell, case of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 is that respondent No. 2 executed an agreement to sell dated 24.01.2000 in his favour to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000 and received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 as earnest money at the time of agreement. It was stipulated in the agreement that sale deed would be executed by her on receipt of the balance sale consideration on 30.04.2000. On 30.04.2000, another amount of Rs. 50,000 was received by respondent No. 2 and the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 31.05.2000. Thereafter, with their mutual consent, the date for execution of the sale deed was further extended upto 31.07.2000. As per the plaintiff -respondent No. 1, he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but respondent No. 2 failed to do so; rather on 24.08.2000 she transferred the property in favour of the appellant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,10,000 by way of a fraudulent transaction. Hence, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(2.) IN her written statement, respondent No. 2 admitted the material averments made by plaintiff -respondent No. 1 regarding execution of the agreement to sell dated 24.01.2000. It was further submitted that the appellant got the sale deed executed from her under compulsion and without payment of any consideration. It is the further case of respondent No. 2 that she had apprised the appellant regarding execution of the agreement to sell of the property in question in favour of respondent No. 1.

(3.) IN his replication to the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, plaintiff -respondent No. 1 controverted the averments made by the appellant and reiterated his version given in the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration: