RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR Vs. MALKIAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the courts below.

(2.) Plaintiff - Respondent No.1 had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.09.2008. In the alternative, he claimed recovery of earnest money. The case set up in the plaint was that vide agreement to sell dated 19.9.2008, defendant No.1 -( respondent No.2 herein) had agreed to sell land measuring 3 Kanals i.e. 60/507 share out of the suit land in his favour at the rate of Rs.12 lacs per acre for which he received Rs.50, 000/- as advance. The sale-deed was to be executed and registered on 112008 by defendant No.1, on payment of the balance sale consideration. It was also agreed that if the plaintiff failed to get the saledeed executed in terms of the agreement, the earnest money would stand forfeited and if defendant No.1 failed to execute and get the sale-deed registered, he would be liable to pay double the amount of the earnest money. It was also agreed that on failure of defendant No.1 to execute the sale-deed in terms of the agreement, the agreement could be enforced through court. The plaintiff was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kahnuwan on 112008 with balance sale consideration and requisite expenses to get the sale-deed executed, but defendant No.1 did not turn up to execute the sale-deed as per the agreement and the plaintiff got his presence marked before the Sub-Registrar on 112008. The alleged sale-deed dated 27.3.2009 executed in favour of appellants - defendants No.2 and 3 on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell dated 27.7.2008 was illegal null and void being a forged and fabricated document having been prepared by defendant No.1 in connivance with defendants No.2 and 3, who were the real nephews of defendant No.1.

(3.) The case of defendant No.1 was that he had executed a registered sale-deed dated 27.2009 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 for a sale consideration of Rs.4, 87, 500/- on the basis of agreement to sell dated 27.7.2008. The agreement pleaded by the plaintiff dated 19.9.2008 was a forged and fabricated document. In fact, defendant No.1 had received Rs.50, 000/- from the plaintiff for some domestic needs and as security, the plaintiff had obtained signatures of defendant No.1 on blank papers which had been misused by the plaintiff. There was no occasion for defendant No.1 to execute the agreement to sell dated 19.09.2008 with the plaintiff as before that he had already executed agreement to sell with defendants No. 2 and