JASPAL SINGH Vs. SUKHWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal preferred by appellant -plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar whereby appeal preferred by respondents -defendants has been disposed of modifying the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar to the extent that alternative relief of recovery of Rs.2,00,000/ - along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of agreement till its realization has been granted instead of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.01.2004. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the suit.

(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts as averred in the plaint are to the effect that the defendants agreed to sell the double storied house as detailed in head -note of plaint to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/ - vide agreement to sell dated 12.01.2004. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, the defendants received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ - from the plaintiff as earnest money in the presence of witnesses. There was a stipulation that sale deed would be executed on 01.06.2004 by the defendants after receiving balance sale consideration. On the stipulated day, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar during the whole day to get the sale deed executed, but the defendants did not turn up to perform their part of the agreement. The plaintiff also served a legal notice dated 03.06.2006 upon the defendants requesting them to execute the sale deed, but to no avail. Hence, suit was filed.

(3.) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit and filed written statement by taking various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that in January, 2004, Surjit Singh Chug, son -in -law of defendant no.1 was in need of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ -, therefore, the defendants approached the plaintiff for lending him a loan. The plaintiff is a money lender and his business is to lend money on interest. The son -in -law of defendant no.1 had borrowed the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained blank cheques of the defendants. At the relevant time, the plaintiff asked the defendants to sign certain documents on stamp papers and he assured that the same would be kept as a security. Neither the defendants had executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, nor received any earnest money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had already received Rs.5 lacs from her son -in -law from time to time. Other averments in plaint were denied. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had filed several complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against various persons.