KAMLA DEVI Vs. VIKAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgement shall dispose off the above noted two regular second appeals being RSA-3503-2023 and RSA-3540-2023 both filed by the plaintiff-appellant, namely, Kamla Devi challenging the judgments and decrees dtd. 16/7/2019 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Kharkhoda, Sonipat and dtd. 4/9/2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonipat.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff appellant herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 27/2/2009. It was averred in the plaint that the defendants in the plaint i.e. Krishna, Vikas, Sunil and Rakesh along with one Anil had entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 13 Kanal 3 Marla as fully detailed in the plaint for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000.00 (rupees three lakh fifty thousand). It was the case set up that the entire sale consideration was paid and the defendants along with Anil executed the receipt acknowledging having received the amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 (rupees three lakh fifty thousand) in the presence of witnesses. Anil is stated to have sold his share i.e. 1/15th share vide registered sale deed bearing No.2672 dtd. 19/11/2014. It was averred that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell the defendant No.1, namely, Krishna (respondent No.1 in RSA-3540-2023 and respondent No.2 in RSA-3503-2023) and defendant No.2, namely, Vikas (respondent No.1 in RSA-3503-2023) had assured the plaintiff-appellant that they would get the signatures of defendants No.3 and 4, namely, Sunil and Rakesh (respondents No.2 and 3 in RSA-3540-2023 and respondents No.3 and 4 in RSA-3503-2023) on the agreement to sell as well as the receipt. However, they kept delaying the matter on one pretest or the other. Defendants No.3 and 4, namely, Sunil and Rakesh (respondents No.2 and 3 in RSA-3540-2023 and respondents No.3 and 4 in RSA-3503-2023) are stated to have telephonically agreed to honour the agreement to sell as well as the receipt. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on 15/11/2014. On the said date, defendants No.1, 2 and 4, namely Krishna, Sunil and Rakesh (respondents in RSA-3540-2023 and respondents No.2 to 4 in RSA-3503-2023) came present before the Sub-Registrar Kharkhoda and stamp papers were also purchased by the plaintiff-appellant of Rs.86,700.00 (rupees eighty-six thousand seven hundred). Sale deed was scribed and handed over to defendants No.1, 2 and 4, namely Krishna, Sunil and Rakesh (respondents in RSA-3540-2023 and respondents No.2 to 4 in RSA-3503-2023). However, they fled from the Office of Sub-Registrar without executing the sale deed. It was further the case that the plaintiff-appellant was still ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement.

(3.) Defendant-respondents herein contested the suit by filing their written statement raising various preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, etc. On merits it was denied that any agreement to sell was executed as alleged on 27/2/2009. The execution of the receipt was also denied. It was further denied that any amount was received from the plaintiff-appellant as alleged. It was further the case set up in the written statement that the plaintiff-appellant in collusion with Anil had prepared a forged agreement and receipt which are not binding on the rights of the defendant-respondents herein. Allegations qua visit to the office of the Sub-Registrar were also denied.