BHOLA SINGH Vs. LEELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff -respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell in question was decreed against the appellant and appeal preferred by the defendant -appellant against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the first Appellate Court was dismissed. Plaintiff -respondent filed the instant suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.1.2008 alleged to be executed by the appellant -defendant for sale of land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, at the rate of Rs.5,18,000/ - per acre and received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ - as earnest money in the presence of witnesses. The remaining amount was to be paid before the Sub Registrar on 30.5.2008. The plaintiff -respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date with the balance sale consideration and expenses required for registration of the same. However, the appellant failed to turn up to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the suit.

(2.) UPON notice, the appellant appeared and filed his written statement, denying the averments made by the plaintiff and raised various legal objections. It was stated that agreement to sell dated 4.1.2008 was false, forged and fabricated and the same does not bear the signatures of the defendant. On merits, it was specifically denied that the defendant had entered into the agreement dated 4.1.2008 with the plaintiff to sell his land. It was further denied that the defendant received any earnest money. It was also averred that in absence of any agreement by the defendant, the question of its execution does not arise. Rest of the allegations were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Both the parties were given due opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -

(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decided issues nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue no.4 was held redundant and issues No.6, 10, 11 and 12 were decided against the defendant, being not pressed and thus, the suit of the plaintiff -respondent for specific performance of agreement, was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 5.8.2010.