SWARAN SINGH Vs. BALTEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010 passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, whereby, the suit for possession through specific performance of the contract on the basis of agreement to sell dated 21.10.2003 and for permanent injunction, has been decreed and the first appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant stands dismissed by the District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 01.10.2011.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the aspect that no agreement to sell was actually entered into between the parties, rather, the appellant-defendant had signed some blank papers which was for a loan of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, because of the fact that his wife was suffering from cancer and the money was required for her treatment. That apart, he contends that as per the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed on 15.05.2004 and even if, it is assumed that 15th and 16th being Saturday and Sunday, were holidays and therefore, on 17th respondent-plaintiff was required to be ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement for which he was required to produce proof of the remaining amount being available. He has referred to the cross-examination of respondentplaintiff (PW-2) where he has not been able to specify the amount which he had collected from two sources i.e. from New Punjab Traders, Sirhind Mandi and Rajender Kumar of Rajpura who is the Commission Agent. What has been stated is that he has received an amount of '5/10 lacs from Commission Agent New Punjab Traders, Sirhind Mandi and '5/7 lacs from Commission Agent Rajender Kumar of Rajpura. He further states that it has been stated that the dates have also not been specifically mentioned as to when it was taken, because at one stage, he stated 2/3 days and on other stage, he stated 5/7 days. Counsel submits that it creates a doubt in the mind to the availability of the funds on that day i.e. 17.05.2004 when he had appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Fatehgarh Sahib, for execution of the sale deed. He, therefore, contends that the Courts below, in the given circumstances, have not considered the facts specially the hardships which the appellant-defendant would have to undergo as this is the only piece of land which is his source of livelihood and if the appellant-defendant loses this, it would leave his family without any source to survive on. He, accordingly, contends that the judgments of the Courts below be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant-defendant and have gone through the records of the case.