GURMIT SINGH Vs. PADMA AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-Appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur has been decreed and the appeal preferred vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sangrur met with the same fate .

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.10.2006 executed by the defendant-appellant in respect of house measuring 275 sq yards situated at Kishan Bagh Colony, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur consisting of Khasra No.547/1/1/min (0-9.1/6) along with electricity connection, water connection, sewerage connection and all the fixtures and fittings. It was averred that the aforesaid agreement to sell was entered into for total sale consideration of Rs.50,90,000/- out of which Rs.12 lacs was received as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell and the balance amount was to be paid upto 31.3.2007. On 17.3.2007, the plaintiff through his counsel sent a registered notice to the defendant to meet her for the approval of draft sale deed and for purchase of stamp papers and to come present in the office of Sub Registrar, Sangrur for execution and registration of sale deed on 30.3.2007 and 02.04.2007 as 31.3.2007 and 01.04.2007 were holidays. The defendant refused to receive the notice. Plaintiff appeared before the office of Registrar on the aforesaid date along with the balance sale consideration of Rs.38,90,000/- in the shape of pay order of Indian Bank dated 21.3.2007 and got his presence marked.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant wherein the agreement to sell was alleged to be forged and fabricated and prepared in connivance with typist stamp vendor and witnesses. It was stated that the defendant had taken loan of Rs.12 lacs from the plaintiff on interest, in lieu whereof the defendant appended his signatures on blank and unwritten papers so as to give security to the plaintiff for advancement of loan. Even the photo copy of the sale deed was also handed over to the plaintiff. It was only loan transaction as the appellant-defendant wanted to send his son abroad for higher education. The agreement to sell in question was denied in entirety.