KULWINDER SINGH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2015 qua an alternative relief for recovery of Rs.75,000/- along with interest, and as even the appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 15.04.2017, he is before this Court in Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff prayed for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.01.2011 qua a house measuring 28'X25'= 700 sq. feet i.e. 2.5 marlas, comprised in specific khasra numbers as depicted in the cause title of the plaint. In brief, the case set out by him was that defendant had executed agreement to sell dated 25.01.2011 in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.90,000/-. Rs.75,000/- were paid as earnest money on 25.01.2011 itself, whereas the balance consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed on 25.12.2011. As 25.12.2011 was a holiday, plaintiff visited the office of Sub Registrar, Abohar on the following day i.e. 26.12.2011, to perform his part of the contract. But as the defendant failed to appear and execute the sale deed, thus, the suit.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was denied if any agreement to sell the suit property was executed by the defendant. Rather, it was pleaded that said agreement was executed only to secure the repayment of loan obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff. Further, value of the house in question was nearly Rs.7,00,000/- and, therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant to have agreed to sell the same for Rs.90,000/- only. In fact, defendant had mortgaged the house in question with possession with one Saroj Rani wife of Surinder Kumar on 26.06.2009 for Rs.45,000/-. As the time stipulated to redeem the mortgage was about to mature, owing to his weak financial condition, he approached the plaintiff and obtained loan of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, plaintiff in order to grab the suit property refused to accept the loan amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- and, thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.