AJMER SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Ajmer Singh is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2006 passed by District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib have been upheld.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.04.1999 and in alternative prayed for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs and for permanent injunction. It is pleaded in the plaint that defendant executed agreement to sell dated 28.04.1999 in favour of plaintiff in respect of 14 kanals 4 marlas of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs. Amount of Rs. 2 lacs was paid as earnest amount and sale deed was decided to be executed and registered upto 30.11.1999 on receiving balance amount of consideration. The default clause was also added in the agreement to sell to the effect that plaintiff shall have a right to get the sale deed executed and registered through process of the Court and also to recover damages. It has been alleged that the plaintiff informed the defendant personally on 30.11.1999 and remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Khamanon to perform his part of contract but the defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff pleaded that he remained ready and willing throughout to perform his part of contract and is still willing to do so. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 18.05.2001 and thereafter, filed the suit.

(3.) On put to notice, defendant contested the suit by filing written statement raising preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable. It has been alleged that the agreement to sell dated 28.04.1999 was the result of fraud and misrepresentation played by the plaintiff upon the defendant. Defendant denied execution of agreement to sell dated 28.04.1999 and also denied having received the earnest amount in any manner. The suit has been contested in all customary pleas. It has been replied on merits that defendant neither executed the alleged agreement to sell nor received the earnest money. The agreement to sell is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. Plaintiff is doing the business of commission agent under the name and style of Bhangu Traders, Khamanon for the last 20 years. Defendant is an agriculturist. Defendant sold his crops at the shop of commission agent i.e. plaintiff for three years. During the last four years, he stopped selling the crops at the shop of commission agent. Defendant was ailing and has undergone heart surgery and other operations. During the selling of crops at the shop of the plaintiff, defendant borrowed some amount from him and the same was adjusted at the time of selling of the crop. When the defendant stopped selling the crops at the shop of the plaintiff, no amount was due against him. It has been further alleged by the defendant that on 27.04.1999, Mohal Lal, Sub Inspector of Police Station, Khamanon came to the house of the defendant and took him to the office of Sant Singh, DSP, Khamanon in connection with an application filed by the plaintiff. The said Sub Inspector left the defendant when he came to know that the son of the defendant is also in the police department. On 28.04.1999, a Home Guard from the office of DSP, Khamanon came to the house of defendant and asked him to appear before the said office. Thereupon defendant and his son Jasdev Singh went to the office of DSP, Khamanon at 9.30 AM and they were asked to stay in the office till arrival of the plaintiff. At 1.30 PM, plaintiff along with Amar Nath Nanda, Stamp Vendor and Mangat Rai Wadhera came there. They were also having their professional registers. Then DSP, Sant Singh obtained signatures of the defendant on two places i.e. one at the back of the blank stamp paper and another in the register of Mangat Rai Wadhera illegally and forcibly at the instance of the plaintiff. Defendant was made to sign and he signed in English. Defendant and his son requested the DSP and Gurdial Singh to explain as to why they have pressurised to sign the paper. On threat being given by DSP to implicate them in a false case under NDPS, they kept mum. Thereafter, they were dropped by the plaintiff at the bus stand in his car. The defendant and his son came back and kept mum due to fear of DSP. Defendant further contended that when he received summons of this case, he was shocked to know that plaintiff has forged and fabricated the alleged agreement on the said blank stamp paper which was got signed by defendant on 28.04.1999. In this way, the agreement to sell has been claimed to be fraudulent.