DALIP SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFEATED defendant Dalip Singh (here -in -after referred to as 'the appellant') is in regular second appeal to challenge judgement/decree dated December 12, 2012 of the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak (here -in -after referred to as 'the District Judge') affirming judgment and decree dated May 18, 2010 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak (here -in -after referred to as 'the trial court') decreeing civil suit for possession of a plot describable as Ahata No. 02 measuring 150 square yards, shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint, part of agricultural land as fully described in the heading of the plaint (here -in -after referred to as 'the suit property') by specific performance of agreement to sell dated September 25, 2003 (Exhibit P4) (here -in -after referred to as 'the agreement') statedly executed by appellant in favour of plaintiff Ram Chander (here -in -after referred to as 'the respondent').

(2.) AS per case pleaded by the respondent, the appellant claiming himself to be owner of the suit property, executed an agreement on September 25, 2003 to sell the suit property in his favour for a consideration of Rs.02,00,000/ - only; received from the respondent the entire sale amount of Rs.02,00,000/ -; delivered possession of the suit property to him along with original sale deeds No. 138/1 of April 06, 2000 and 4668/1 October 24, 1988 pertaining to the suit property; agreed to execute the necessary sale deed in his or his nominee's favour whenever asked to do so by him; but did not come forward for execution of the sale deed when called upon to do so by him in the month of September 2005 and instead filed a complaint against him, got his thumb -mark on an agreement to sell by force, took away the original sale deeds and after the complaint was found to false by the police, apologised before him but then filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was also averred by the respondent in the plaint that after possession of the suit property was delivered to him he constructed a house over the plot in question at a cost of Rs. 01,50,000/ -, secured an electricity connection (though in appellant's name) and allowed the appellant to stay in the house as a care taker as execution of sale deed was kept in abeyance because he (the respondent) was running short of funds.

(3.) RESPONDENT filed a replication to deny all what was said in the written statement and to re -assert his plea as put up in the plaint.