JARNAIL SINGH Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is at the instance of the appellant-defendant against whom a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.7.2007 in respect of agricultural land measuring 2 kanals 16 Marlas situated at Village Balahar Vinju has been decreed and the appeal filed against the same has also been dismissed. Admittedly, as per the case set out by the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 11.7.2007, in respect of land described above, for a total consideration of 14 lacs in his favour and a sum of '8.75 lacs was paid in cash as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses. Since the respondent-plaintiff did not turn up for execution of the registration of the sale deed which necessitated the appellant-defendant to institute the suit for seeking specific performance of agreement to sell. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2008. The appellant-defendant contested the suit by denying the execution of the agreement to sell, much less receipt of the earnest money and came out with the stand that defendant had been selling the crop through the respondent-plaintiff, who is a commission agent and in this process he obtained signatures of the appellant-defendant on various papers including blank papers and stamp papers which, later were converted into an agreement to sell.

(2.) The stand of the appellant-defendant was specifically denied by the plaintiff-respondent by filing a rejoinder. The trial court decreed the suit after examining oral and documentary evidence, particularly the cross examination of appellant-defendant who unequivocally admitted that the agreement to sell dated 11.7.2007 Ex.P-1 bore his signatures on the reverse as well as on the second page. He also identified his signatures on two places at third page. Bahadur Singh Nambardar was the attesting witness on the agreement to sell who proved the same and no dent was caused in his statement. He had no enmity with appellant-defendant.

(3.) The lower appellate court also upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court after examining the aforementioned affidavit and as well as affidavit dated 20.12.2007 Ex.P-2 executed by respondent-plaintiff to show that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The lower appellate court found that the finding recorded by the trial court was based on appreciation of the evidence available on the file and therefore declined to interfere.