ANIL KUMAR Vs. RAJIV CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

(2.) The pleaded facts of the case are, the respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the'plaintiff') filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 24/11/2000 with regard to 3 marla land/suit land. The agreement was executed by respondent/defendant No.2 being General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the appellant/defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as'defendant No.1') for a sale consideration of'50,000. The plaintiff paid earnest money of'48,000 to defendant No.2 in presence of marginal witnesses. The date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 4/11/2002, i.e., after about two years of execution of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff also claimed that at the time of the execution of the agreement, possession of the suit land was handed over to him. On the date fixed for execution of sale deed, the plaintiff was present with the balance sale consideration but the defendant did not turn up, which led to filing of the suit for specific performance, and in the alternative, relief of recovery of'96,000, i.e., double the amount of earnest money.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No.1 pleading that was a case of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, who were close relatives, and that the agreement to sell was completely false and fabricated document. The general power of attorney given to defendant No.2 was to supervise the plot in question and defend any litigation. This power of attorney was also cancelled on 27/11/2000. Defendant No.2-GPA holder of defendant No.1, filed a separate written statement and admitted the plaintiff's claim. He, however, submitted that after the receipt of earnest money, the general power of attorney was revoked by defendant No.1, and, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed.