BALDEV Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal whereby the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dtd. 3/6/1979 although decreed by the learned Trial Court; has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court by holding the Agreement dtd. 3/6/1979 to be fraudulent.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dtd. 3/6/1979; and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs.30,000..00 It was the pleaded case in the plaint that Ram Singh was owner in possession of suit property comprising of 3 shops, as described in the plaint. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Ram Singh. Ram Singh had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant vide Agreement to Sell dtd. 3/6/1979 for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,000.00 of which earnest amount of Rs.25,000.00 was received by Ram Singh in cash at the time of execution of Agreement on 3/6/1979. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 18/2/1981 on receipt of remaining amount of Rs.5,000.00. It was further agreed that if the plaintiff would not get the Sale Deed registered, advance money will stand forfeited and if the vendor will not execute the Sale Deed, the plaintiff would get Rs.50,000.00 as damages including Rs.25,000.00 as earnest money. Appellant had further averred in the plaint that target date of 18/2/1981 was a Sunday. Hence the appellant duly appeared before the Sub Registrar on the very next date i.e. 19/2/1981 to execute the Sale Deed, however the defendant did not turn up. Notice was issued to the legal heirs of Ram Singh. On the contrary, defendants No. 1 to 5 vide Sale Deed dtd. 28/4/1981 had sold the suit property to defendants No. 14 to 16 with the consent of defendants No. 2 to 13. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 25/7/1985.

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 13 filed written statement resisting the suit on the ground that Agreement in question was a forged Agreement which was never executed by Ram Singh. It was contended that the suit property is a joint property of Ram Singh and his brother Bhan Singh and both have equal shares of the suit property which is in their joint possession. It was alleged that the Agreement dtd. 3/6/1979 had been prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with his brother-in-law Parmod Bhushan, who was tenant in one of the 3 suit shops. It was denied that the said defendants had ever received any legal notice from the plaintiff. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.