JASWINDER SINGH Vs. MANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this regular second appeal is the judgment dated 28.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, affirming that of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana dated 14.8.2012, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell was dismissed. Brief facts of the case required to be noticed for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal are that according to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 being the allottee of plot No. 705-1, measuring 250 square yards, situated at BRS Nagar, Ludhiana from defendant No. 2 - Ludhiana Improvement Trust, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff through agreement, executed in May 1978 (no date is mentioned). As per terms and conditions of the said agreement, plaintiff paid Rs. 8856.64 to defendant No. 1 as full and final payment. Plaintiff agreed to deposit the remaining installments of the plot with defendant No. 2-Ludhiana Improvement Trust. In the part performance of the agreement, defendant No. 1 handed over the vacant possession of the said plot to the plaintiff and delivered all the original documents of allotment and payment receipt. Since then plaintiff is in lawful possession of the said plot. The remaining installments were paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 was to first get the sale deed executed from defendant No. 2-Ludhiana Improvement Trust and thereafter he was to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But despite repeated requests defendant denied to comply with the said conditions and failed to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff accordingly served legal notice on 18.5.2006 upon the defendant. Reply thereto was sent by defendant No. 2 on 29.9.2006. Another reminder was sent on 22.3.2007 and again defendant No. 2 sent a false and frivolous reply to said reminder. Thereafter, the present suit was filed on 28.7.2007.

(2.) The stand of defendant No. 1 in the written statement is that the suit is time barred and not maintainable. Defendant No. 1 denied the agreement to sell and claimed the same as false and fabricated. He further claimed that he had to go to USA. Plaintiff asked defendant No. 1 to hand over all the relevant papers to him for completion of all the formalities for the transfer of plot in the name of defendant No. 1 as he has links with the officials of defendant No. 2. In good faith, defendant No. 1 handed over the original papers to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff forged and fabricated the alleged agreement. Till date the vacant possession of the plot has not been handed over to him by the Improvement Trust. Defendant returned to India in 2003 and sent two letters dated 17.11.2003 and 9.12.2003 for the allotment of the plot in the name of the defendant and also deposited Rs. 100/- and also sworn an affidavit dated 9.12.2003. From the pleadings, following issues were framed by the lower Court:-

(3.) The lower Court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit is time barred and that the agreement is not proved.