ARUR SINGH Vs. KULWANT SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986 of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur by which decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell passed by the Court of first instance was set -aside and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) ARUR Singh, plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit against Smt. Nasib Kaur wife of Niranjan Singh and Kulwant Singh for specific performance of the agreement dated 6.12.1983, by which she had agreed to sell 9 Kanal - 8 Marlas of agricultural land for a consideration at the rate of Rs. 41000/ - per acre. The plaintiff having filed the suit against the defendants in the Court of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur obtained a decree in his favour on 26.9.1986. That decree was appealed against by the vendee -defendant, Kulwant Singh in the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur which was allowed on 8.12.1986, setting -aside the decree of the Court of first instance except that the plaintiff was held entitled to recover, as alternative relief, an amount of Rs. 15,000/ - which had been paid by him as earnest money to Nasib Kuar. It is that judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which has been appealed against in this Regular Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff and which requires my examination of its sustainability. I have seen the pleadings in the suit, the evidence adduced by the parties in the suit and the judgments of the Courts below. Learned Sub Judge has said in his judgment : -

(3.) FROM the above evidence he drew inference to the effect that the stamp paper on which the agreement had been scribed was obtained on 31.3.1983 to suit the last entry in the register otherwise the stamp paper could have been purchased in normal course of events in the month of April 1983. This clearly shows that the stamp paper was obtained after 6.12.1983 but it was shown to have been purchased before the said date. Further, the time gap given for execution of the sale deed from 20.4.1983 to 20.6.1984 i.e. for more than one year was abnormally long and if the agreement to sell had actually been executed on 20.4.1983 then there was no reason to delay the execution of the sale deed upto 10.2.1984. Besides this, the agreed date of execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was 5.6.1984 while the date of execution of sale deed in favour of Kulwant Singh, defendant No. 2 was 20.6.1984 but the sale deed in his favour had been executed in high haste on 10.2.1984 i.e. 4 -1/2 months earlier. All this leads to the conclusion that the parties very well knew about the existence of the agreement to sell dated 6.12.1983 in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement dated 20.4.1983 put forth by Kulwant Singh defendant No. 2 was prepared in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff that accrued to him vide agreement to sell dated 6.12.1983.