JAGGA SINGH Vs. GHANSHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was defendant before the lower court, has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.1997 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur, wherein the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ferozepur was reveresed and thereby in place of decree for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- along with future interest @ 6% per annum, a decree for possession of land measuring 4 kanals, 16 marlas as comprised in Rect. No.16, Killa No.4(5-16), situated in village Chak Rumwala, Tehsil Fazilka, Dirstrict Ferozepur by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.01.1988 was granted. The defendant was directed to accept the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- and get the sale deed executed and registered the same within a period of two months from the date of passing of the decree. The expenses of the non-judicial stamp paper, fee of the scribe and registration charges were ordered to be borne by the plaintiff. It was further ordered that if the defendant failed to do so , the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed through the court within a further period of one month after depositing the balance sale consideration.

(2.) At the very outset, it is to be mentioned here that the defendant has not challenged the decree passed by the lower court, vide which the alternative relief for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- was awarded with future interest @ 6% per annum. Even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant had stated that the defendant (appellant herein) had no objection if the decree passed by the lower court is maintained.

(3.) The stand of the defendant is that the suit property was also mortgaged with Phula Singh son to Tek Singh. He had already sold the half share of the same. It was further pleaded that there is only an agreement of mortgage for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and defendant had returned the said amount and he is now in actual possession of the suit land. According to the defendant, the plaintiff might have fabricated the contents of the alleged agreement in connivance with the deed writer and attesting witnesses.