JEET SINGH Vs. BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -Bahadur Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreements to sell dated 11.6.1999. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2003 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant.

(2.) THE facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment read as under :- "The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that on 11.6.1999 defendant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 32,000/- per bigha, for total consideration of Rs. 6.40,000/- and he received Rs. Five lac as earnest money and remaining sale consideration was to be paid to him at the time of execution of sale deed for which, time period was fixed till 15.6.2000 and in this regard, defendant also executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses after receiving the earnest money. The possession was to be delivered to the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed and expenses were to be borne by the plaintiff. That after execution of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15.6.2000 to 18.6.2000, there were holidays in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmargarh and plaintiff remained present at the said office on 19.6.2000 along with balance sale consideration and other expenses, but the defendant did not turn up to perform his part of the agreement. The plaintiff also got his presence marked through an affidavit. The defendant was asked time and again to perform his part of the agreement and to deliver the possession of the suit property, but he extended threats to alienate the suit property to some body else at a higher rate. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement alleging that he had been selling his crops at the shop of M/s Bir Bhan Goyal, Commission Agent, Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, who might have obtained the thumb impressions of the defendant on some blank papers and on the alleged agreement to sell. The plaintiff is man of commission agent and in collusion with each other and deed writer and marginal witnesses, they have manipulated the alleged agreement. The defendant had stopped to sell his crops at said commission agent shop and in order to take revenge, this document has been prepared by them in favour of the plaintiff, which is without consideration, forged and fabricated, inadmissible in evidence and unenforceable in law. The defendants never executed any such agreement in favour of the plaintiff, neither received earnest money and nor he agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Denying all other allegation, it is alleged that plaintiff has got affidavit executed in order to create the false evidence regarding his willingness to perform the alleged agreement. However, defendant admitted his ownership over the property, but alleged that he has no intention to alienate the suit property."

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit.