DIPIKA SHARMA Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2011. As even the appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.03.2013, defendant is before this court vide this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 14.10.2004, as regards the suit property measuring 1 marlas (11'X46''). As defendant happened to be the owner in possession, vide agreement in question, she had agreed to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by way of earnest money at the time of execution of agreement. The sale deed was to be executed on 18.04.2005, on receipt of balance sale consideration. Plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As 18.04.2005 was a holiday, plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar, Machhiwara on 19.04.2005, but was informed that it was not the day fixed for registration of the documents. Plaintiff again went to the office of Sub Registrar on the following day i.e. 20.04.2005 and was fully equipped with the balance sale consideration and the funds to defray the miscellaneous expenses. He remained present in the office till 4:45 p.m. and got his presence marked. But the defendant failed to turn up. And as the defendant threatened to alienate the suit land to someone else, thus, the suit.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiff happened to be a money lender from whom the defendant had obtained loan of Rs. 50,000/-. Plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant on certain blank papers to secure the loan, with an assurance that he would return those on clearance of the loan amount. It was agreed that the defendant would pay interest @ 3% per month and she had since been paying the interest every month. Plaintiff was alleged to have played a fraud upon the defendant. Agreement dated 14.10.2004 was said to be a sham transaction.