AMARJIT KAUR Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS -defendants Smt.Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh have filed this regular second appeal against Harpal Singh respondent -plaintiff, challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar, vide which the suit filed by plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance was decreed and also challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the appeal filed by the appellants -defendants was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that plaintiff -respondent Harpal Singh filed a suit against Smt.Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh defendants -appellants for possession by way of specific performance of the contract dated 26.01.2004 regarding the agriculture land measuring 16 kanal 7 marla as fully described in the head note of the plaint. It is mainly stated in the plaint that defendants agreed to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff @ Rs. 3,50,000/ - per acre and Rs. 2,11,000/ - was paid as earnest money and date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 20.06.2004 vide agreement to sell dated 26.01.2004, which is signed by both the parties. It is also stated that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is having ready money to pay the balance sale consideration but the defendants are putting off the matter.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of defendants in the written statement is that all the co -sharers of the land have not been made as a party and sum of Rs. 2,11,000/ - has not been given by the plaintiff as earnest money. Defendant No.1 being a widow lady does not know how to read and write Punjabi and defendant No.2 under the influence of drugs does not know the technicalities of law. It is further stated that plaintiff had an evil motive to grab the land of the defendants and purchased 2 killas of land by forging the sale deed. It is also stated that defendants lodged complaints against the plaintiff as he as forged the agreement to grab their property. There is no question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff as he used to take the signatures of the defendants on blank papers. Plaintiff -respondent examined PW -1 Kuldip Singh, PW -2 Davinder Khanna, PW -3 Naresh Chander Sharma and examined himself as PW -4. On the other hand, defendants -appellants Smt.Amarjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh examined themselves as DW -1 and DW -2 respectively.