HARDEEP SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of RSA Nos. 822 and 866 of 2015 as these have emerged out of the same judgments and decrees passed by the courts whereby suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.1.2006 was partly allowed and he has been granted alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 9.5 lakhs alongwith interest. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from RSA No. 822 of 2015.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff filed suit for specific performance on the premise that the respondent-defendant agreed to sell the suit land, detailed in para 1 (unnumbered) of the judgment of trial court for Rs. 4 lakhs per acre and executed agreement to sell dated 27.1.2006. The appellant paid Rs. 9 lakhs as earnest money to the respondent in the presence of marginal witnesses and target date for registration of sale deed was 27.1.2007. On request made by the respondent, appellant paid Rs. 50,000/- more on 24.3.2006 and after receiving money, respondent made an endorsement on reverse of the agreement to sell. The appellant always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the stipulated date i.e. 27.1.2007, it was Saturday and 28.1.2007 was Sunday which were holidays in the office of Joint Sub Registrar. On 29.1.2007, appellant met the respondent and requested him to execute and register the sale deed but he refused to do so. The appellant alongwith money attended office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Guruharsahai for performing his part of the contract but the respondent did not turn up. He got his presence marked by way of moving an application which was returned with endorsement. Possession of the suit land was delivered to the appellant at the time of execution of agreement to sell. In the alternative, he has prayed for recovery of Rs. 34,77,500/- towards refund of earnest money/part of sale consideration and damages.

(3.) The respondent/defendant filed the written statement raising a plea that agreement dated 27.1.2006 set up by the appellant is forged and fabricated, prepared in connivance with the typist, attesting witnesses and Kulwinder Singh by forging signatures of defendant from another agreement dated 19.1.2006, executed by respondent jointly with his nephews through attorney Satinder Singh in favour of the plaintiff for sale of 126 kanal 12 marlas under which the appellant paid Rs. 15,00,000/- towards earnest money to executants of that agreement. It has further been averred that the answering defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement dated 19.1.2006 but the appellant failed to perform his part of the agreement and as such, the earnest money paid by him under the said agreement stood forfeited. All other material averments of the plaint have been denied with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.