GURNAM SINGH Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.11.1998 in respect of land measuring 9 kanals 18 marlas situated in village Ida, Tehsil Shahkot at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per killa was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against defendant-appellant. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,58,250/- within a period of two months from the date of the decree passed by the trial Court and the defendant thereafter to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of one month, failing which the plaintiff was given the right to get the sale deed executed with the intervention of the Court. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the appellate Court. He is now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that agreement to sell dated 10.11.1998 contained the name of Balbir Kaur and not of plaintiff-Balwinder Kaur as the proposed vendee. Said Balwinder Kaur had not thumb-marked the agreement, as it was shown to be thumb-marked by Balbir Kaur only. Therefore, the agreement was a result of impersonation, fraud and forgery.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant then submitted that there existed a default clause in the agreement to sell, which barred specific performance. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon Dadarao and another v. Ramrao and others, (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 416, wherein agreement for sale of agricultural land itself provided for the return of earnest money along with another sum in case the seller refused to sell or the purchaser refused to buy and, thus, the contract could not be specifically enforced as there was no obligation on the seller to complete the sale transaction.