JASWANT SINGH Vs. DINESH KUMAR @ DINESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Jaswant Singh had brought a suit against defendant Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Chand craving for grant of relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 12/10/2007 with possession as owner, in addition to that asking for relief of permanent injunction, on the assertions that the defendant had entered into an agreement with plaintiff to sell land measuring 19 kanals 16 marlas situated at village Babain, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01 detailed in the plaint, which was mortgaged with PLDB, Ladwa @ Rs.8.00 lacs per acre receiving Rs.2.00 lacs as earnest money; that the final date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 13/5/2008; that the said agreement was thumb marked by the defendant and attested by the witnesses. According to the plaintiff, he has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract; that he is cultivating the suit land at the spot as prospective vendee since the defendant had put the plaintiff in physical possession of the suit land as part performance of the agreement to sell and in terms of Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff is deemed to be owner in possession of the suit land, however, the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from such land and to alienate the same. According to the plaintiff, the defendant refused to accede to his request to admit his claim and to execute and get registered the sale deed qua the suit land in his favour and not to alienate such land to anybody else except the plaintiff, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit.

(2.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendant, who appeared and filed written statement wherein he took up several legal objections that the suit was not maintainable; that suit was false, frivolous and vexatious; that plaintiff had no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit; that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct etc. On merits, the defendant denied having entered into any agreement to sell with the plaintiff, rather he came up with the allegations that such agreement to sell set up by the plaintiff was a result of fraud and coercion played upon the defendant by brother of plaintiff in collusion with his associates; that as a matter of fact, the defendant had neither agreed to sell the suit land with the plaintiff nor received earnest money and signatures and thumb impressions of defendant were obtained on blank stamp papers of Rs.10.00 each and also in the register of the Deed Writer Singh Ram; that the defendant being owner in possession of the land had mortgaged the same with Punjab Land Development Bank, Ladwa. Refuting the remaining allegations in the plaint, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: