TARA CHAND Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is in second appeal. For convenience, the parties are being referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as defendant and respondent No.1 as plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for confirmation of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 12/5/2009 qua land measuring 8 Kanals 6 Marlas agreed to be sold in his favour by the defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,55,656.84 (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six And Eighty Four Paise Only).

(3.) Counsel for the appellant/defendant while assailing the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below has submitted that the Courts below erred in ignoring the fact that even though possession is stated to have been delivered to plaintiff by defendant and the suit has been filed for confirmation of possession, the agreement to sell was unregistered document and ought not have been admitted in evidence in view of Sec. 17 read with Sec. 49 of Registration Act, 1908. He has further submitted that the Courts below erred in ignoring the fact that plaintiff in order to succeed in suit for specific performance is required to prove readiness and willingness and there was no proof brought on record by plaintiff to show that he was in possession of the requisite funds on the given date.