SANT SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is at the instance of appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.08.2012, whereby, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.05.2005 in respect house as described in the head note of the plaint situated at village Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala has been decreed and the appellant-defendant was directed to get the sale deed registered/executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,40,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 4,60,000/- already been paid as earnest money, within a period of two months from passing of the decree, failing which, the respondent-plaintiff had been given direction to seek execution and registration of the sale deed through the process of Court and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has also been dismissed. Mr. Tushar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant in support of his grounds of appeal submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality and perversity in decreeing the suit by exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, as it is only house of appellant-defendant. He further submitted that respondent-plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and therefore, urged before this Court that appeal involves substantial questions of law to be adjudicated by this Court.

(2.) I am afraid, the aforementioned submission of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant sans merit, for the simple reason that appellant-defendant in the written statement denied the execution of the agreement to sell. It is cardinal/settled proposition of law that a person who denies the execution and registration of the sale deed, cannot be permitted to raise the plea of readiness and willingness. Reference invited to the judgment of Jora Singh v. Lakhwinder Kumar and others, 2011 161 PunLR 251.

(3.) As far as, the hardship is concerned, the said plea is also fallacious, for the reason, that no such pleadings/averments have been taken in the written statement. The stand taken by the appellant-defendant was that though he had signed the document, but Naresh Kumar, attesting witness obtained his signatures on the blank paper, but the fact remains, that the signatures were not on the blank paper but on the stamp paper. The plea of defendant-appellant is also falsified. It has also come on record that the defendant-appellant in cross examination admitted his signatures on the agreement to sell and he did not examine the document expert to disbelieve the plea of fraud much less his signatures. On the contrary, the respondent-plaintiff has proved the readiness and willingness on 01.05.2006 as the target date was fixed as 01.05.2006.