AMAR SINGH Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the averments made in the plaint, appellantdefendant No.1 who was owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 12 kanals 7 marlas being 1/3rd share of the total land measuring 37 kanals 1 marla as detailed in the head note of the plaint, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,31,566/ - at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/ - per acre and received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - as earnest money and executed the agreement to sell dated 29.9.1995 in the presence of the witnesses.

(2.) IT was agreed that remaining sale consideration would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed which was stipulated to be executed on 15.4.1996. It is the further case of the plaintiffrespondent that on the request of the appellant, a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - was given to him on 12.4.1996 and the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 17.6.1996. This writing was executed on back of the original agreement to sell and was signed by plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thus, defendant No.1 received Rs.2,20,000/ - from plaintiff. On 17.6.1996, plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, but he again sought extention of time. So, date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 5.8.1996. On 5.8.1996 also defendant could not execute the sale deed and sought extension of time. So, with consent of both the parties, date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 5.1.1997. A writing was executed on the back of the original agreement to sell and was signed by both the parties and attested witnesses. According to the plaintiff -respondent, he remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 6.1.1997 (5.1.1997 being holiday) and waited almost the entire day for the appellant, but appellant did not turn up for the reasons best known to him. Thereafter, appellant got his presence marked and a legal notice was also served upon the appellant asking him to get the sale deed executed on 10.4.1997. The said notice was received by him but he again failed to turn up on the date fixed. It is the further case of the plaintiff -respondent that appellant -defendant No.1 sold a portion of suit land measuring 5 kanals 11 marlas to defendant No.2 (now respondent No.2) by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 3.7.1996 and further mortgaged the property with defendants No.3 and 4 (now respondents No.3 and 4). Plaintiffrespondent further averred that he was still ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Appellant committed breach of agreement by selling a portion of land to defendant No.2 and not abiding by the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. Hence the necessity arose to file the suit.

(3.) UPON notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, appellant denied execution of agreement to sell as well as receipt of earnest money. It was further alleged that his signatures obtained on blank pieces of paper were misused by the respondent. In fact, appellant raised a loan amounting to Rs. 30,000/ - from State Bank of India, Naraingarh and gave the said amount to the plaintiff -respondent who was facing acute shortage of funds. Respondent issued three cheques dated 21.9.1989 amounting to Rs. 2000/ -, 25.2.1990 amounting to Rs. 5000/ - and 5.4.1990 amounting to Rs. 5000/ -. However, the cheques were returned back unpaid. Thereafter, appellant tried to contact the plaintiff -respondent but he came to know that plaintiffrespondent has gone abroad. However, the loan amount was repaid by the plaintiff -respondent to him in the year 1992, when he came back. After some time, appellant was in need of money and he approached the plaintiff -respondent who agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/ -on interest at the rate of Rs. 3% per month and on the pretext of furnishing some security signatures of appellant were taken on blank pieces of paper and were misused by the plaintiff -respondent, by fabricating an agreement to sell thereupon. Further, appellant admitted execution of sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 qua a portion of the suit land for a valuable consideration. The other allegations were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.