HARNAM SINGH Vs. DHARAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harnam Singh defendant has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 8.9.1982 passed by the District Judge, Amritsar, vide which he has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to Dharam Parkash plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the cross-objections to challenge the judgment of the District Judge, Amritsar, and prayer has been made to decree his suit for specific performance of the agreement. As both the appeal as well as the cross-objections have arisen out of the same judgment and decree, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case as per the suit filed by the plaintiff are that the defendant agreed to sell 2 acres of land to him at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per acre in the month of May, 1978. A sum of Rs. 12,000/- was allegedly paid by him as earnest money. The rest of the amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed within three months. On 24.7.1978 the stamp papers were purchased by the defendant. The sale deed (Ex. P-1) was scribed. However, the defendant without signing the sale deed, took it with him on the pretext of consultations with the relatives. When the defendant did not return for the purpose of execution of the sale deed, a case was registered against him with the police. Ultimately, the sale deed was recovered by the Police from the possession of the defendant. The defendant filed written statement, wherein he took up the defence that he never agreed the sell 16 Kanals of land at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per acre. Rather, he contends that he agreed to sell 6 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per acre. He denied having received the sum of Rs. 12,000/- as earnest money. Both the parties adduced evidence. The Sub-Judge Ist Class, Tarn Taran, after examining the evidence adduced on record, dismissed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was, however, partly allowed by the District Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.1982, and the defendant has been ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 12,000/- allegedly received by him from the plaintiff as earnest money. Now the defendant as well as the appellant have filed the present appeal and the cross-objections, respectively, to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Amritsar.

(3.) No one is present on behalf of the appellant. I have heard Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned Counsel for the respondent.