MOHAN SINGH Vs. BANT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present regular second appeal, filed by defendant No.1- Mohan Singh, against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. The Court of first instance partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for alternative relief of recovery with costs to recover the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount with effect from the date of execution of agreement (Ex.P1) i.e. 23.5.2006 till date of decision and further future simple interest at the rate of 6% on the principal amount with effect from the date of the judgment till actual realization. However, the Court of first instance declined the prayer for specific performance of the agreement of sale (Ex.P1). Two separate appeals were filed before the first Appellate Court, one by plaintiff-Bant Singh and other by defendant No.1-Mohan Singh. Both the appeals were dismissed by the first Appellate Court.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance. Relevant facts for the purpose of decision of the present appeal that plaintiff had filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.5.2006. A sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed on or before 7.6.2007. As per plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of agreement, despite requests and as such necessity of the suit. Defendant No.1 contested the suit inter alia taking the plea that he had never executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. However, plaintiff and defendant No.1 are known to each other as plaintiff is a Commission Agent and running his commission agency in the name & style of M/s Bant Singh & Sons, Morinda. Defendant No.1 used to sell his crops at the shop of plaintiff and as such he had obtained signatures and thumb impressions of defendant No.1 on some papers and his signatures were also obtained on stamp papers. Later on, he came to know that plaintiff had prepared alleged agreement of sale by playing fraud upon him. There was no payment of earnest money and prayed that suit be dismissed.

(3.) Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement inter alia taking the plea that defendant no.1 was not competent to execute agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and the said agreement is illegal, null and void. More so, plaintiff was aware of loan taken by defendant No.1 and execution of mortgage deed. It was prayed that suit be dismissed.