HIMANSHU JAIN Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2014 passed by the District Judge, Sangrur, accepting the appeal of the respondent/plaintiff and modifying the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2010 passed by the trial Court thereby allowing specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.06.2004.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that Lalit Kumar Goyal, respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.06.2004 in respect of shop in dispute on the premise that its erstwhile owner Dalip Jain (respondent No. 2) agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.8,80,000.00, received Rs.50,000.00 as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale-deed on 31.08.2004. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but defendant No. 1 Dalip Jain colluded with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and transferred the suit property in their favour vide sale-deed No. 1689 dated 11.08.2004. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had knowledge of agreement to sell dated 18.06.2013 when sale-deed in their favour was executed by defendant No. 1.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 appeared in the proceedings, later absented and again joined but did not file any written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement setting up plea that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration without any notice of agreement dated 18.06.2004. It is averred that the agreement to sell is a fake document, created by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No. 1 to defeat their rights created vide sale-deed dated 11.08.2004 on payment of sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000.00. Defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit property and possession was delivered in favour of the answering defendants at the time of execution of sale-deed.