VED PARKASH KATYAL Vs. BALWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreements to sell dated 22.03.2002 and 10.02.2003 (Ex.P1 and P2) for sale of the disputed shops has been dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) According to the pleadings of the appellant, the respondent being an owner of the shops in question entered into an agreement to sell dated 22.03.2002 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. He received the full consideration amount and executed a receipt on the agreement to sell in the presence of witnesses. As per the aforesaid agreement, the last date for execution of the sale deed was 21.02.2003; however, the defendant failed to honour the agreement and entered into a separate agreement dated 10.02.2003, wherein the last date for executing the sale deed was stipulated as 10.08.2003, but the said day being Sunday plaintiff-appellant requested the defendant-respondent to come present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jagadhri on 08.08.2003 to get the sale deed registered but the respondent failed to turn up. The plaintiff-appellant got his presence marked by way of an affidavit and thereafter a notice was sent to the defendant-respondent requiring him to come present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 19.09.2003 to execute the sale deed in his favour. He came to the office of Sub-Registrar on the date fixed along with the required charges but the respondent did not turn up. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant-respondent appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was alleged that the plaintiff-appellant was doing the business of money lending. In the month of March, 2002 he was in need of money and he requested the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000, which the plaintiff-appellant paid with an interest @ 5% per annum and as a token of security, obtained from him three blank cheques along with few blank stamp papers duly signed by him. The loan was cleared on 31.12.2002 along with interest, however, the plaintiff failed to return the documents stating that the same were not traceable. Again on 18.02.2003, he obtained Rs. 25,000 from the plaintiff-appellant and gave one blank stamp paper and a cheque. Unfortunately, the defendantrespondent could not pay the interest regularly, upon which the plaintiffappellant threatened to utilize the said papers. On 04.09.2003, two legal notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were served upon him, and thereafter, a compromise was effected between the parties and as per the aforesaid compromise dated 01.11.2003, the plaintiff-appellant received a sum of Rs. 50,000 in lump sum, however, he did not return the blank papers. Thus, the suit has been filed after a period of three years on false and frivolous grounds. On merits, it was denied that he ever received any amount of Rs. 1,50,000 from the plaintiff-appellant. Execution of any agreement to sell was also denied.