MAGHAR SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - defendant is aggrieved of concurrent findings rendered against him by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya vide judgment and decree dtd. 19/3/2010 as well as by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dtd. 6/2/2014. Suit filed by the plaintiff was consequently decreed.

(2.) Plaintiff - respondent filed a suit seeking confirmation of possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dtd. 17/11/1998 stated to be executed by the present appellant - defendant in favour of the plaintiff regarding land measuring 20 kanal 1 marla out of 60 kanal 7 marlas i.e. his share in the land as detailed in the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff - respondent that defendant - appellant is the owner of land measuring 20 kanal 1 marla being his share out of 60 kanal 7 marlas in the suit land as detailed. Agreement to sell dtd. 17/11/1998 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Possession of the land was delivered by the defendant in respect to which writing dtd. 18/11/1998 in the presence of the marginal witnesses was executed as well. Sale consideration was fixed as Rs.10,500.00 per kanal. A sum of Rs.30,000.00 was received by the defendant as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell in the presence of marginal witnesses. It was stipulated that sale deed would be executed on or before 1/4/1999 after receipt of balance sale consideration. It is further stipulated that in case sale deed is not executed within the stipulated period, the plaintiff would have a right to get the sale deed registered through a Court of law and in case the plaintiff failed to carry out his part of the contract, earnest money received by the defendant would stand forfeited. The plaintiff pleaded that on 1/4/1999 he was present at the Tehsil complex Garhdiwala alongwith balance sale consideration, stamp fee, registration expenses, witnesses etc. but the defendant did not come present. The plaintiff on the next day went to the defendant's house and asked him to execute the sale deed but proper reply was not given. Defendant is stated to have made an endorsement on 24/8/1999 on the back of agreement dtd. 17/11/1998 to the effect that the sale deed in question would now be executed in favour of the plaintiff on 3/4/2000 on the pretext that partition of the land in dispute had yet not taken place. Plaintiff remained present at the Tehsil complex, Garhdiwala but the defendant did not come present. It is pleaded that the defendant - appellant refused to execute the sale deed on one pretext or the other and ultimately notice dtd. 19/2/2001 was served through registered AD calling upon the defendant to execute and register the sale deed within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. This notice was duly served upon the defendant who surprisingly sent a letter dtd. 27/2/2001 to the plaintiff wherein he demanded a copy of agreement to sell dtd. 17/11/1998 and endorsement dtd. 24/8/1999 but did not give any reply to notice dtd. 19/2/2001. It was claimed that the plaintiff was already ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant intentionally did not come forward for registration of the sale deed due to his mala fide intention of negotiating with some other persons for sale of the suit land. Plaintiff pleaded that the defendant forcibly dispossessed him from the suit land on 1/2/2008 in an illegal manner. An amendment in the plaint was sought and allowed. Relief for possession of the suit land in addition to the execution or registration of the sale deed was prayed for. Relief for permanent injunction had earlier been sought at the time of filing of the suit as it was pleaded that the defendant being a strong headed person wanted to dispossess the plaintiff in an illegal manner. Sale deed was not being registered and possession had also been forcibly taken from the plaintiff. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendant - appellant resisted the suit. Written statement was filed raising various preliminary objections and averments on merits were controverted. It was pleaded that the defendant was a simple, illiterate person. He sold 19 marlas of land to the plaintiff with three mango trees thereon. A dispute regarding these trees arose with Chunni Lal, who filed a case for partition as well. The plaintiff asked the defendant to hand over a power of attorney to contest the partition case as well as for settling the dispute regarding the mango trees. Blank papers, it was contended, were signed by defendant, who never agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff, which is the only source of income. It is further stated that the plaintiff refused to settle the matter with Chunni Lal. Panchayat was convened. Defendant was called in the Panchayat and was asked to pay Rs.7,000.00 to Chunni Lal as the price of the mango trees which were standing on the land measuring 19 marlas purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. It is further stated that land worth Rs.40,000.00 per kanal could not have been sold at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per kanal. Prayer for dismissed of the suit was made. Replication was filed.