JAGGA RAM Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant has filed the instant regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dtd. 28/3/2014 passed by the lower court decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 11/12/2000 as well as judgment and decree dtd. 12/9/2018 passed by the first Appellate Court where the first appeal filed by the appellant-defendant has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case as stated are that, on 11/12/2000 appellant-defendant entered into an agreement to sell with the respondents- plaintiffs to sell the suit land (as described in the headnote of the plaint) for a sum of Rs.3,85,000.00 and received Rs.1.00 lac as earnest money. Vide the agreement to sell, the appellant-defendant had agreed to execute and register the sale deed on 11/9/2003. It is averred that the respondents-defendants were always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and even remained present before the office of Sub Registrar, Rajpura for getting the sale deed executed and registered as per the agreement to sell dtd. 11/12/2000 with the balance sale consideration amount and the expenses of registration and stamps. In this regard, they got an affidavit attested on 11/9/2003 from the Executive Magistrate, but the appellant-defendant did not turn up. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) Upon notice, appellant-defendant appeared and filed the written statement while taking the preliminary objection as to non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the appellant-defendant alleged that agreement to sell dtd. 11/12/2000 is fictitious document and has been prepared by playing fraud upon her. The appellant-defendant denied that she received Rs.1.00 lacs from the respondents-plaintiffs. It is averred that the appellant- defendant had entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 11/9/2000 with Bhupinder Singh and Gursewak Singh for a consideration amount and question of defendant entering into agreement with the respondents-plaintiff on 11/12/2000 does not arise. It is claimed that possession of the respondents-plaintiffs over the suit land is as co-sharer and not as a result of alleged agreement to sell. Remaining averments have been denied.