RANJIT SINGH Vs. PARKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To be referred to the Reporters or not

(2.) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Present appeal, at the hands of defendant, is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of specific performance, was decreed. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that defendant being owner of the property fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, entered into an agreement to sell dated 4.4.2005 with plaintiff Parkash Kaur (since deceased) for a total sale consideration of Rs.6 lakhs, out of which Rs.5,50,000/- was paid by plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money and sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on 04.07.2005. Plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant calling upon the defendant to perform his part of contract. On the agreed date, defendant did not appear in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Katarpur to perform his part of contract as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement to sell. The plaintiff got her presence marked in the office of Joint Sub Registrar. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and was still ready and willing for the same but it was the defendant who has resiled from the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. The defendant was threatening to alienate the suit property at higher rate to some other person which culminated in filing of the present suit. Upon notice, defendant appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff by raising preliminary objections that suit was not maintainable; plaintiff had no cause of action nor any locus standi to file the suit; the plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands; the suit was bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties; the plaintiff was estopped by her act and conduct from filing the suit and suit was not properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. On merits, defendant admitted his ownership over the said property. It was denied that defendant entered into any agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff. The alleged agreement to sell was forged and fabricated document and it was never executed by him in favour of Parkash Kaur. Infact, Parkash Kaur( since deceased) and one Boota Singh, who was the marginal witness of the alleged agreement to sell were associates with a Travel Agent namely Gurcharan Singh @ Pappu of Fatehgarh Sahib. They all enticed the defendant and defendant paid a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs in order to go to Italy, to plaintiff Parkash Kaur and they obtained the signatures of defendant on certain blank stamp papers in order to use the same for the foreign journey of the defendant, but they could not send the defendant to Italy nor refunded the money to the defendant. Parkash Kaur might have converted the said blank stamp papers into alleged agreement to sell. The defendant did not receive any alleged legal notice from the plaintiff. All the remaining averments of the plaint were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

(3.) To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has duly proved her case. Accordingly, the suit for possession by way of specific performance was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.1.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed his first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.4.2013. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.