HARJIT SINGH Vs. NAIB SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the First Appellate Court decree dated November 19, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sangrur dated October 13, 2011 dismissing the suit. The appellant who was the plaintiff, instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale of corpus agricultural land falling in the revenue estate of village Rai Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Sangrur, entered between him and the 1st respondent Naib Singh comprising 20 Bighas O Biswa in the land described in the plaint. He sought execution of sale deed and in the alternative prayed for refund of earnest money of Rs. 7 lacs said to be paid at the time of execution of the agreement along with interest @ 18% per annum till realization. Prayer (B) in the suit was for declaration to the effect that the registered transfer deed No. 112 dated April 21, 2004 executed by Naib Singh in favour of Sukhwinder Singh - 2nd respondent his minor son acting as minor's guardian conveying the corpus to his minor son be declared as illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff since the transfer was without consideration and thus liable to be set aside. In his first prayer in the suit for specific performance, he did not pray for possession of corpus.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts in the plaint were that vendor Naib Singh agreed to sell corpus for Rs. 55,000/ - per Bigha and in furtherance of the proposed transaction executed the abovesaid agreement with the appellant after receiving earnest money of Rs. 7 lacs on the day the agreement was signed. The agreement was scribed by a document writer. It was agreed that Naib Singh would have to execute the sale deed in favour of appellant up to November 17, 2004. On failure to do so it was agreed that the appellant would get the sale deed executed and registered through Court by depositing the balance amount of sale consideration. The appellant remained at all times ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On November 17, 2004 the appellant as prospective vendee remained present and waiting in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Bhawanigarh to discharge his contractual obligations but Naib Singh did not turn up to discharge his. In the circumstances the appellant got his presence marked before the Joint Sub Registrar, Bhawanigarh.

(3.) ON summons issued, the respondents appeared and contested the case by filing separate written statements of defendant father and son refuting the facts pleaded in the plaint. It was pleaded in defence that the agreement in question was without consideration. The 1st respondent denied that he had ever agreed to sell his land or received any earnest money from the appellant on April 19, 2004 as alleged. It was recounted that one Ram Singh son of Mukand Singh, cousin of the appellant runs a commission agency at village Bhadson. He and persons known to him have good relations with senior police officers and together they wanted to usurp the property of the respondent Naib Singh. Ram Singh is stated to be the brother -in -law of Tek Singh, brother of Naib Singh. On June 16, 2004 Tek Singh, brother of Naib Singh, Ram Singh, commission agent and a few other persons arrived at village Rai Singh Wala and took away by force three trolleys of wheat belonging to the respondents. Naib Singh's wife made a complaint of the incident to the police but the police did not readily act parrying it off on one pretext or the other. However, later better sense prevailed and FIR No. 62 was registered on April 23, 2004 under Sections 382/323/506/148 & 149 IPC at PS, Bhawanigarh. Though FIR was registered but no investigative action was taken by the police. At the instance of the appellant and his people, respondent Naib Singh was kept in illegal police custody from April 16, 2004 to April 20, 2004 and during that period, the appellant, Ram Singh and Tek Singh obtained the signature of the respondent -Naib Singh on certain papers. These persons also compelled Naib Singh to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/ - from his saving bank account. Appellant Harjit Singh and company sold the wheat of the 2nd respondent and denied payment for the produce. They even obtained the signatures of respondent - Naib Singh on promissory notes and receipts and later on they prepared these documents in favour of one Ranjit Singh son of Jawala Singh as holder of promissory notes. On the basis of these pronotes, a suit for recovery was filed in the Court at Amloh against the respondents. It was then averred in the written statement that the price of corpus property was not less than Rs. 90,000/ - per Bigha at the relevant time. When the agreement dated April 19, 2004 was obtained against the free will and consent of the 1st respondent and the alleged amount of Rs. 7 lacs was not received by him then the question of execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the appellant did not arise at all. In this way, the agreement was without consideration. The appellant controverted the averments in the written statements by tendering replications thereto.