KARTARI DEVI Vs. MAHENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court granting him the specific performance of agreement was reversed and the decree was restricted to the relief of returned of earnest money.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1-Tarif Singh (respondent No.2 in the present appeal) entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.03.1999 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- in resect of a plot having area of 60 sq. yard. forming part of Khasra No. 190 (1-5), 19 (0-17) total measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas situated within abadi (La Dora) of village Sihi, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad. The further pleading of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 had received Rs. 40,800/- as part payment of the sale consideration. It was further pleaded that the target date fixed for the execution of the sale deed was agreed to be one year from the date of the agreement. However, when the plaintiff contacted defendant No.1 in the month of February, 2000 to execute the sale deed in her favour on payment of balance sale consideration; then defendant No.1 refused to execute the sale deed by putting excuses. Therefore, the suit was filed. However, it was further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff had come to know that defendant No.1 along with his brother, sister and widowed mother had sold the suit property to defendant No.2-Raju vide sale deed dated 20.04.1999 during the subsistence of agreement to sell. Defendant No.2 further sold the suit property to defendant No.3-Satbir Singh vide sale deed dated 05.10.2000. Therefore, both the sale deeds in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 were also challenged to be null and void and therefore sought to be declared as such.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections. On merits it was claimed that he had obtained some loan worth Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff as she is his real Bua. In view of that temporary loan the plaintiff got signed two plain papers in presence of witness Virender Singh. It was claimed by him that he had returned the whole loan along with interest. Therefore, in effect, he denied the execution of the agreement and claimed the said agreement to be a fraudulent document. Defendants No.2 and 3 also filed written statement taking preliminary objections as usual. However, it was pleaded on merit by them that defendant No.1 has rightly sold out the suit property to them and the sale deed dated 20.04.1999 is binding upon defendant No.1 as well as the plaintiff.