DALBARA SINGH Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly put, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to tell dated 1-6-1981 in respect of the land measuring 16 Kanals situated in village Mangat, District Ludhiana. As per averments in the plaint, defendant entered into an agreement for the sale of this land in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre and received a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement on 1-6-1981. The sale was to be executed by June 1, 1982. It was stipulated in the agreement that in the event of the failure of the defendant to execute and to get the sale deed registered within the stipulated period, the plaintiff will have the option to get the same executed and registered through the process of the Court, it is further averred that the defendant when approached postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, notice dated 28-5-1982 was served upon him but to no effect. The plaintiff waited for the defendant in the office of the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date but the defendant did not turn up. It was further averred that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and raised few preliminary objections i.e, the land in dispute is ancestral property/coparcenary property and so the agreement to sell is not enforceable. The agreement is also unenforceable. The agreement is also unenforceable in view of the decree of the civil Court dated February 8, 1988. On merits, it was denied that he is owner of the suit land. He further asserted that he was allured by the plaintiff to affix his thumb impressions on a document and so at no time he intended to sell the suit property. The defendant even denied the execution and the validity of the agreement to sell. In fact, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had misrepresented. It was represented to him that the document was an agreement to mortgage. The defendant further pleaded that he is an illiterate and innocent person and that the attesting witnesses of the agreement are close relations of the plaintiff. Even receipt of earnest money of Rs. 12,000/- was denied.