GURMAIL SINGH Vs. NACHHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by Gurmail Singh against judgment dated 23.11.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga decreeing the suit of plaintiff-Nachhattar Singh for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.05.2008. Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Moga. (In later part of judgment parties to suit will be referred as plaintiff and defendant as per the civil suit.)

(2.) The plaintiff filed suit seeking relief of specific performance of agreement dated 03.05.2008 alleging therein that the defendant agreed to sell land measuring 26 kanals 15 marlas i.e. 25 kanals 7 marlas being 507/5686 share of land measuring 284 kanals 6 marlas as fully detailed in headnote (1) and 1 kanal 8 marlas i.e. 28/591 share of land measuring 29 kanals 11 marlas as fully described in headnote (2) of the plaint. The deal was struck for Rs. 25,57,959/-. A sum of Rs. 7 lacs was paid as earnest money and the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 22.09.2008. On that day, the plaintiff had gone to the office of Sub Registrar, Baghapurana with ready cash and other necessary charges to perform his part of contract and waited for defendant the whole day but he did not turn up to get the sale deed executed and registered. The plaintiff got his presence marked through affidavit got attested from Executive Magistrate, Baghapurana.

(3.) Defendant in his written statement dubbed agreement to sell dated 03.05.2008 as forged, fabricated, antedated and result of fraud played by plaintiff in connivance with scribe and witnesses. He took the plea that no such agreement was ever executed. He is addicted to liquor and usually remains under the influence of liquor round the clock. The plaintiff being a clever person might have obtained his signatures on some blank papers and later on converted the same into agreement to sell. The rate of land in the village is not less than Rs. 20 lacs per acre and no prudent man would like to sell his land at a throw away price. It was also averred that the suit land is ancestral coparcenary property of defendant and defendant being karta was not competent to sell the same. Minor son and daughter of defendant filed suit for injunction against the defendant to restrain him from alienating the suit land wherein a compromise was arrived and the defendant agreed not to alienate the land in any manner.