BALWINDER SINGH Vs. SHAM LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.08.2010 in respect of the suit property having agreed to sell for total sale consideration of Rs.16,76,000/- against receipt of earnest money of Rs.9,00,000/-, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for the appellant-defendant submits that stand of appellant-defendant in the written statement was complete denial of having entered into agreement to sell. In fact, the blank stamp papers had been used meant for loan transaction and in this regard, two receipts dated 26.06.2009, Ex.D1 and 7.9.2009, Ex.D2 have been brought on record but the same have not been looked into on the premise that the same were prior to the agreement to sell. In fact, there is no denial to the aforementioned receipts in the replication as the plaintiffs are three in number and only one, i.e., Sham Lal has stepped into witness box. In the absence of the same, defendant has been prevented to confront the aforementioned receipts to Munish Kumar - plaintiff No.3.

(3.) In support of his aforementioned contention, relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out by this Court in Kanta vs. Gajanand,2016 4 LawHerald(P&H) 3037, wherein, by relying upon the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanjappan vs. Ramasamy and another, 2015 2 LawHerald(SC) 1563, it has been held that where the suit property is residential, the discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 should not be granted, instead alternative relief along with interest ranging from 6% to 9% and thus, urges this Court for setting aside the findings under challenge.