HARBANS SINGH Vs. G S SANDHU LT COL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Rupnagar whereby on appeal preferred by the defendants, judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and as a consequence thereof suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement to sell, dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiffs (appellants herein) filed suit for possession of Plot No. 18-C, Phase-II, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali measuring 1 Kanal by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.12.1988 alleged to have been executed by Ltd. Col. G.S. Sandhu (respondent No. 1 herein) in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs, in their plaint, alleged that Ltd. Col. G.S. Sandhu being the owner of plot in question, offered the same for sale to the plaintiffs and a bargain was struck for purchase of said plot for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 28.12.1988. The said bargain was got settled with the efforts of Shri Baldev Singh and Shri Malagar Singh, Property Dealers at the house of Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu at Jalandhar. Plaintiffs alleged that agreement and receipt in this regard was written on simple papers in simple language and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid as earnest money and the last date for completion of sale deed was fixed on 10.3.1989. Plaintiffs averred that Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu had undertaken that he would get No Objection Certificate, No Due Certificate and Income-Tax clearance etc. by the stipulated date. It is said that plaintiffs enquired from the Office of the Estate Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh in regarding to the outstanding amount, if any, against the said plot and a sum of Rs. 150/- was deposited by the plaintiffs on 11.2.1989 by way of demand draft. Plaintiffs averred that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the obligation under the agreement but Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu did not come forward to perform his part of the agreement. Plaintiffs contended that faced with this situation, plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction in the court of Subordinate Judge, Kharar restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property to any body else except the plaintiffs or their nominee. Stay was granted and upon appearance, defendants denied the agreement itself. Plaintiffs further contended that on the stipulated date, they waited for Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu with requisite money for completion of sale deed in the Tehsil Complex but the latter did not turn up. Suit of injunction having been rendered infructuous was withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 11.1.1990 and thereafter suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed. In the suit, plaintiffs also challenged decree dated 22.8.1989 suffered by Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu in favour of defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No. 332 of 1989 titled as G.S. Sandhu v. Subdul Singh on the ground that the decree dated 22.8.1989 was as a result of collusion between Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu and defendant No. 2 and was got passed to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs under the agreement to sell.

(3.) Upon appearance, defendants filed their written statements. In his written statement, Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu denied the execution of the agreement or receipt on 28.12.1988. He also denied that he received a sum of Rs. 20,000/from the plaintiffs as earnest money. In fact, he termed the document as forged and fictitious having been created by the plaintiffs in connivance with the witnesses. He also took objection with regard to suit being not maintainable in the present form. Defendant No. 2 in his separate written statement, pleaded that he exchanged his landed property measuring 32 Kanals 3 Marias situated in Village Pachranga, District Jalandhar with Plot No. 18-C, Phase-II, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. He alleged that the rights between the parties which had come into being on the basis of exchange were got recognised through decree dated 22.8.1989. He denied that the decree was as a result of collusion between him and Lt. Col. G.S. Sandhu. Plaintiffs filed replication reiterating the stand taken in the plaint and denied the stand taken by the defendants in their written statement.