NASEEB SINGH Vs. BHOLA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Nasib Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.12.1996 with consequential relief of permanent injunction, which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2006. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2008. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- "?2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are; that the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.12.1996 with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant inter alia on the averments that the defendant being ower of the disputed property, fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 16.12.1996 against a sum of Rs. 4 lacs and he received a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- as earnest money. The target date for getting the sale deed executed and registered was fixed as 15.6.1997, which fell on Sunday. It is pleaded that the plaintiff being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract asked the defendant to get the sale deed executed and registered on 13.6.1997, but, he refused to do so. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar along with the balance sale consideration on 13.6.1997 and 16.6.1997 as well as 17.6.1997 for getting the needful done, but, the defendant did not turn up. Thereafter, he was requested to get the needful done, but, of in vain. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) On notice, defendant appeared and filed his written statement wherein he denied the execution of the alleged agreement to sell and receipt of any earnest money by him. It is further pleaded that on 20.6.1991 he borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff and in lieu of that he executed an agreement to sell his land measuring 07 kanals-8 marlas for a sum of Rs.65,000/- and the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 20.6.1992. Later on, it was extended upto 15.6.1993. It is further pleaded that on 17.6.1993 after adding the interest and receiving some more amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- became due against him and on 17.6.1993 he executed fresh agreement to sell for the sale of the same land measuring 7 kanals-9 marlas for a sum of Rs. One lac. Rs.50,000/- were shown as earnest money and the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 20.6.1994. This agreement was written in favour of Sahab Singh, who happens to be the real brother of the plaintiff. On 20.6.1994 date of the aforesaid agreement was extended to 20.6.1995. It is further pleaded that on 21.5.1993 plaitniff also got another agreement written in respect of the other land which was measuring 07 kanals 12 marlas in his own favour. This agreement was also exexcuted as a security of Rs.50,000/- which was shown as earnest money and the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.95,000/-. The target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 30.6.1994. It is further pleaded that on 20.6.1994 date of the said agreement was extended upto 20.8.1995 i.e. the date for execution of the sale deed for both the agreements i.e. Agreement dated 17.6.1993 and 21.5.1993 was made same. On 27.6.1995 plaintiff again got another agreement written in his own favour for the suit land measuring 15 kanals showing the sale price as Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 1 lac was shown as earnest money. The target date was fixed as 20.6.1996. On 19.6.1996 date for execution of the sale deed of this agreement was also extended upto 15.12.1996 and on 16.12.1996 the present agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was got registered. While alleging the agreement in question to be a result of fraud, it is pleaded that the plaintiff has neither locus standi nor cause of action to file the present suit. It is further pleaded that the suit is not maintainable and estoppel is in operation against the plaintiff. While denying all the other averments mentioned in the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed for."