SURJIT SINGH Vs. NANAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are that Nanak Singh-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.5.1995 against the present appellant. It was pleaded that by said agreement, the appellant had agreed to sell land measuring 15 kanals 18 marlas etc. for a sum of Rs. 3,97,500/-. A sum of Rs. 2.60 lacs was paid as earnest money and the remaining amount was payable at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was executable on 9.5.1998. It was further stated that it was the plaintiff who always remained ready and willing to perform his own part of the contract, but the defendant breached the terms and conditions thereof. On the final refusal of the defendant to execute and get registered the sale deed, left with no alternative, a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.5.1995, was filed. In the alternative, relief for recovery of Rs. 3,98,500/- with interest was also sought. Hence, the suit.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the appellant by filing a detailed written statement. It was alleged that the agreement to sell was a forged document. The son of the appellant was to be sent abroad for which the signatures of the appellant were obtained on blank papers. It was denied that agreement to sell dated 10.5.1995, was executed by the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land in suit. It was also denied if any earnest money was received by the defendant from the plaintiff. It was further stated that since the agreement to sell the land in dispute was not executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the question of readiness and willingness of the latter to perform his part of the contract, did not arise at all. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 6.6.2000. The appellant then filed an appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2003. Hence, the present appeal was filed.