MANJIT KAUR & ANOTHER Vs. SUKHCHAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2012. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 21.04.2014. This is how, defendants are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff Sukhchain Singh, he prayed for a decree by way of specific performance of agreement to sell a land measuring 4k-9M comprised in khasra No.1103/92 min situated within the revenue estate of village Ghaniewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot. It was averred that defendants had executed an agreement to sell dated 28.05.2007 as regards the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3 lacs. A sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- was paid by way of earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. It was agreed that the defendants would have the sale deed executed on or before 16.12.2007 and the possession thereof was to be delivered at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was maintained that plaintiff had approached the defendants on 16.12.2007 to execute the sale deed but the plaintiff was asked to have the same executed on 17.12.2007. It was maintained that defendants along with witnesses namely Major Singh Sarpanch and Dalwinder Singh Lambardar, visited Kotkapura and that plaintiff was also present. Stamp papers for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- were purchased by Kuldeep Singh defendant No.2 and the defendants requested that they would execute the sale deed out of entire khata. Accordingly, the sale deed was written by deed writer as regards 04K-09M i.e.89/1314 share out of land measuring 65 kanals 14 marlas including the land measuring 04K-09M out of khasra No.1103/92 min, measuring 09K-09M. The sale deed and other documents were signed by defendant No.2 Kuldeep Singh, however, Manjeet Kaur defendant No.1 refused to sign the documents and to get the sale deed registered. Plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and, thus, the suit.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that no such agreement to sell qua the suit property was ever executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants never received a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- by way of earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. In fact, it was pleaded that some time back, the defendants were in need of some money and they approached the plaintiff for advancing loan of sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Since the defendants failed to return the loan amount, plaintiff manipulated another writing after adding interest therein. Eventually, as the loan amount swelled to Rs. 2 lacs, plaintiff then prepared an agreement to sell. In the middle of December 2007, plaintiff requested the defendants to repay the amount and as defendants were not in a position to repay the amount, they renewed the old loan amount, but plaintiff in connivance with the stamp vendor prepared a false sale deed and obtained signatures of defendant Kuldip Singh. Thus, the documents that were being relied upon by the plaintiff were alleged to be false and fabricated. Further, the alleged sale deed was not in terms of the agreement that was purportedly executed by the defendants as the said agreement was only qua the sale of land measuring 09K-04M out of khasra No.1103/92 but the sale deed contained all the numbers of the khewat of which defendants had no saleable right. And, therefore, the agreement in question was not enforceable.