KULBIR KAUR Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 22.8.2013, whereby, the judgement and decree of the trial court granting alternative relief of recovery of earnest money along with interest in favour of the plaintiffrespondents has been modified and a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question has been passed against the defendantappellants.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondents filed the instant suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.9.2001 in respect of suit land measuring 18 Kanals 8 marlas, as detailed in the suit, against defendant -Paramjit Singh. As per the averments, Paramjit Singh, predecessor -in -interest of the appellants, was the owner in possession of the suit property, who agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff -respondents @ Rs. 2,80,000/ - per acre and received a sum of Rs.3,65,000/ - as earnest money and further executed an agreement to sell in this regard on 12.9.2001. The sale deed of the suit property was to be executed on or before 11.3.2002 on receipt of remaining sale consideration. As per the further averments, the plaintiffs remained ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement but defendant No.1 -Paramjit Singh did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiffs for execution and registration of the sale deed. Rather, he sold some part of the disputed property in favour of Balwant Singh -defendant No.3. It was further averred that defendant No.2 -Bank was impleaded as party as disputed land was mortgaged for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/ -. Since defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of the agreement on the due date, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) UPON issuance of summons, defendant No.1 -Paramjit Singh appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was further averred that he neither entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs nor received any earnest money from them. The plaintiffs got obtained signatures of defendant No.1 on a blank papers for furnishing surety in some case which have been later on converted into valuable document. Thus, the agreement in question is a result of fraud and misrepresentation and defendant No.1 was not bound with the same. The remaining averments of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed.