SAT NARAIN Vs. CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Charan Singh, respondent herein, had filed a suit for specific performance of the registered agreement to sell dated 17.4.2006 qua the land in dispute which was agreed to be sold @ Rs.65,000/ - per acre, whereby total sale consideration came to Rs.4,12,500/ -. It was claimed that a sum of Rs.2 lacs was paid as earnest money and possession of the land was also delivered to the plaintiff at the spot on the date of execution and registration of the agreement i.e. 17.4.2006 though the sale deed was to be executed by 15.4.2008 after making balance payment of Rs.2,12,500/ -. The defendant in the meanwhile, was to clear the loan taken on security of the disputed land and was to produce 'No Dues Certificate' prior to execution and registration of the sale deed.

(2.) WHEN the plaintiff found that the defendant -owner was out and out to alienate the suit land and was to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom, a suit for seeking a decree of permanent injunction was filed. Since the relief of specific performance had become available, withdrawing the said suit for permanent injunction, the suit for seeking specific performance of the agreement was then instituted by the plaintiff. Before filing the suit, even a legal notice was served on the defendant through his counsel on 21.12.2007 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. Service of said notice was refused by the defendant.

(3.) THE defendant, on the other hand, making a contest tooth and nail claimed the disputed land to be ancestral of the defendant and pleaded that since he had no other land, he was not interested to sell the same. It was claimed that agreement to sell was a product of fraud and misrepresentation. It was explained that Rattan Singh, brother of the plaintiff on 11.10.2005 had got executed one agreement to sell in respect of disputed land in his favour for a sale consideration of Rs.1,85,000/ - and the sale deed was to be executed by 18.4.2006. When the defendant had come to know of the said agreement, he had made a complaint against Rattan Singh and had asked him for cancellation of the said agreement. It is claimed that for the purposes of cancellation of the said agreement, Rattan Singh, brother of the plaintiff had claimed that certain documents were to be prepared and thus, taking undue advantage of the defendant, the plaintiff had got the present agreement prepared under the garb of cancellation of the earlier agreement of 11.10.2005. Prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. To adjudicate rival claims of the parties, the lower court had framed following issues on 20.3.2009: