SURESH GOEL Vs. NEERAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 31/5/2018 and the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 16/12/2019 dismissing his suit.

(2.) Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 to execute the sale deed based on an agreement to sell dtd. 24/12/2008 (Ex.P1). The case set up by the plaintiff-appellant was that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 24/12/2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs.90,00,000.00 in respect of plot No.567, Sector-21, Panchkula in the presence of witnesses. It was pleaded that an amount of Rs.4,00,000.00 was paid as earnest money on 24/12/2008 and initially 28/2/2009 was fixed as the execution date. However, the sale deed was not executed on 28/2/2009 and a further amount of Rs.20,00,000.00 was paid on 3/4/2009 as part payment and thereafter the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 were requested to execute the sale deed but they kept postponing the matter. It was further the case that in the meanwhile the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with the defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4 further executed an agreement to sell and applied for transfer permission, but the same could not be sanctioned as earlier transfer permission was applied in the name of the plaintiff-appellant in HUDA. It was further the pleaded case that the plaintiff-appellant was pressurized by the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 to transfer the plot in favour of the defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4, however, the plaintiff-appellant refused to the same. It was further the case set up that the defendant-respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 alongwith 7-8 unidentified persons came to the office of the plaintiff-appellant and started beating him and also threatened that the plaintiff-appellant must get the transfer permission cancelled and they forcibly took the signature of the plaintiff-appellant on some written papers and they also forcibly took him to the Tehsil office and got his signatures on some blank papers. It was further the case that a police complaint was filed by the plaintiff-appellant and FIR No.106 was registered on 10/3/2009 at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula. Thereafter, an FIR was also got registered by the defendant-respondent No.5 against the plaintiff-appellant being FIR No.107 dtd. 10/3/2009. It was further the pleaded case that the defendant-respondent No.3 got a draft of Rs.20,00,000.00 prepared in name of the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and after seeing the draft the plaintiff-appellant came to know that on 23/1/2009 the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 had entered into an agreement with the defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4. It was further the pleaded case that Rs.20,00,000.00 was given in cash to the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the plaintiff-appellant and thereafter the date of execution was extended to 8/4/2009. It was further averred in the plaint that under pressure, the signatures were put by the plaintiff-appellant in the Registry.

(3.) On notice the defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a joint written statement stating therein that the suit was not maintainable. It was the stand taken that the plaintiff-appellant himself was the attesting witness to the sale deed dtd. 22/4/2009 in favour of the defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4. All other allegations made in the plaint were denied. The defendant-respondent No.5 also filed his separate written statement. The defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not file their written statement and adopted that of the defendant-respondent Nos.3 to 5.