SURAT SINGH Vs. GURINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Regular Second Appeal is at the instance of the appellant -defendant against the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff -respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.3.2005 in respect of khewat No.,288,289, 434,285, 286 &429. Khatauni No. 354,524,350,351 & 519, Khasra Nos. 35/11/1(2K -12M), 35/10(5K -16M),36/6 (8K -0M),15/1(6K -4M), 16/2 (5K -1M), 36/7/2 (1K -10M), 36/12 (6K -0M), 17 (6K -15M), 18/1 (1K -12M), 18/2 (1K 16M), 35/11/2 (0K -7M), 20/2/1(0K -3M), 36/16/1 (1K -16M), 15/2 (1K -16M) and 36/27 (0K -16M) out of land measuring 29K 10 Marlas situated in revenue -area Village Singh, Tehsil and District Jalandhar and as well as for permanent injunction restraining the appellant -defendant from alienating, transferring or mortgaging the suit property has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) APROPOS , the admitted facts on record are that the appellant -defendant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.3.2005 with the respondents -plaintiffs, in respect of land measuring 29 Kanals 10 Marlas described above @ of Rs. 38,20,000/ - per Kila for total consideration of Rs. 40,86,250/ -. The respondents -plaintiffs in lieu of agreement to sell paid earnest money of Rs. 15 lacs as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell ibid Ex. P -1. The target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 20.3.2006. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the respondents -plaintiffs were required to pay another sum of Rs. 5 lacs on 20.9.2005. The respondents -plaintiffs complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement and paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the appellant -defendant who executed a receipt in lieu thereof. That prior to the date of execution and registration of the sale deed the respondents -plaintiffs vide Ex. P -3 sent a legal notice dated 11.3.2006 whereby appellant -defendant was called upon to appear before the Registrar for execution and registration of the sale deed. In the legal notice it was clearly mentioned that the respondents -plaintiffs were ready to pay the balance sale consideration and the details of the same in the shape of cheques and drafts, much less cash had also been given. The appellant -defendant did not appear before the Sub Registrar whereas on the other hand, respondent -plaintiff marked his presence before the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar vide affidavit dated 20.3.2006 and proved his presence through testimony of Paramjit Singh, Clerk which was duly entered in the office of sub Registrar, Jalandhar. The said witness also proved the entry on the file.

(3.) THE appellant -defendant in response to the notice of the suit, filed written statement and raised numerous preliminary objections including the objection that plaintiffs did not come to the Court with clean hands, much less the suit was not maintainable etc. and the suit had been filed on the basis of document which had been partially forged. Therefore, the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. It was also averred that the time was essence of the contract because the defendant was to utilize the sale consideration paid by the plaintiffs for the sale of the land to purchase more piece of land for cultivation and when the appellant -defendant had entered into agreement to purchase some other land vide two agreements dated 6.1.2006 Ex. D -2 and Ex. D -3 dated 26.12.2005. The target date in the aforementioned agreement to sell was initially fixed at 5.2.2006 and 20.2.2006 but the date for first agreement to sell which was in respect of land measuring 36 Kanals 2 Marlas was extended to 25.3.2006 and in respect of second agreement to sell pertained to the land measuring 58 Kanals 3 Marlas the target date was extended to 23.2.2006. The appellant -defendant further contended that the second page of the agreement to sell was forged in as much as the respondents -plaintiffs had inserted few lines which enabled the plaintiff to claim the relief of specific performance through competent court of law in case the appellant -defendant failed to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was further averred that since time being the essence of the contract and the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the agreement and despite that defendant had parted with a sum of 2 lacs against the receipt of Rs. 20 lacs.