RAJ KUMAR Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh, dated 19.02.2011, whereby the suit for a decree for specific performance by execution and registration of the sale deed in terms of the agreement dated 12.09.2003 in respect of land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas as described in the head note of the suit, land measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas and 1 kanal 14 marlas further described in the head note of the suit, in all measuring 5 kanals and 10 marlas along with other attachments to the land, situated in village Naraingarh, Hadbast No.88, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Naraingarh, for a total consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/- and on payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- with consequential relief, stands decreed, appeal against which preferred by the appellant-defendant stands dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, on 07.11.2013.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the agreement to sell dated 30.07.2004 is a forged and fabricated document as the said agreement has been got prepared by the respondents-plaintiffs on blank papers on which signatures were taken of the appellant-defendant on the pretext of enlarging him loan of Rs. 25,000/-. He contends that the agreement to sell Exhibit P-1 which has been placed on record, is a laminated document, where backsides of the two papers have been pasted and got laminated. His assertion is that on the backside of the first page of the stamp paper, there was a receipt executed by the appellant-defendant that he had received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as loan from the respondents-plaintiffs. He contends that an application was also moved for removal of the lamination so that the truth could be exposed before the trial Court but the said application has been dismissed. This plea was taken in the Lower Appellate Court also but the same has not been duly considered. Since, this aspect goes to the root of the stand of the appellant-defendant, the Court should have taken appropriate steps to find out the truth. He contends that the appellant-defendant has been denied the benefit of bringing out the truth by the action of the Courts below. That apart, he contends that the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs is delayed and filed after a period of almost two years five months from the date which was fixed for the execution of the sale deed and this also indicates that in fact loan had been given to the appellant-defendant and when he was unable to pay the said loan, the blank stamp papers have been converted into an agreement to sell and the suit filed. He accordingly contends that the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments, as has been raised by the counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments and the summoned records of the Courts below but do not find any merit in the same.