GURMAIL SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 05.03.2011, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 06.05.2005 for sale of land measuring 7 Kanals 4 Marlas was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents on payment of balance sale consideration.

(2.) Suffice it to say that the defendant in her written statement has denied execution of the agreement to sell in question and has taken the plea that the plaintiff-respondents, in connivance with one Manohar Lal, had manipulated her thumb impression by misrepresentation on the pretext of getting her pension fixed. It was pleaded that there was no privity of contract for execution of the sale deed between the parties and the plaintiff-respondents have no right to claim specific performance of the said manipulated document.

(3.) However, both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of the earnest money is duly proved and further that the plaintiff-respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and therefore, they were entitled to the decree as claimed and the defendant has failed to prove her defence, as raised.