OM PARKASH Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Krishan Chand had brought a suit against defendant-Om Parkash praying for specific performance of agreement to sell, in addition to that craving for grant of permanent injunction on the averments that defendant being a co-owner in total land measuring 252 Kanals 11 Marias to the extent of of 761/5051 share coming to 38 Kanals 1 Maria, comprised in Khewat No. 279, khatoni No. 368-369 situated within revenue estate of village Kaimla, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal as per jamabandi for the year 2001-02, had entered into an agreement to sell 8 Kanals of land along with rights attached thereto with the plaintiff, on 7/5/2007 for total consideration of Rs.8.00 lacs, receiving a sum of Rs.4,40,000.00 as earnest money; that the agreement was scribed by Sh. Mahabir Gupta, Deed-Writer, Tehsil Campus Gharaunda and was thumb marked by the defendant in presence of marginal witnesses; the final date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 30/9/2007; that as per the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties, it was settled that in case the plaintiff did not get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour within the stipulated period, then the earnest money paid by him would be forfeited and if the defendant did not get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff would be entitled to get the agreement to sell specifically enforced through Court of competent jurisdiction; that the defendant had handed over actual physical possession of 8 Kanals 0 Maria comprised in Khewat No. 279, khatoni No. 369, rectangle No. 17, killa No. 9(8-0), which was in his exclusive cultivating possession to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement to sell and since then plaintiff has been in actual physical cultivating possession of the said land; that before the stipulated date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed, the defendant had contacted the plaintiff and requested him to pay some amount since he was in dire need of money for getting clearance certificate from the bank; that acceding to that request the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000.00 to the defendant on 28/5/2007 and a receipt was reduced into writing on the backside of original agreement to sell in that regard; that the defendant further received an amount of Rs.10,000.00 from the plaintiff on 1/10/2007, in that way out of total consideration amount of Rs.8.00 lacs agreed between the parties, the defendant had received a sum of Rs.5,60,000.00. According to the plaintiff, he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he had contacted the defendant several times before the fixed date i.e. 30/10/2007 but the defendant put off the matter on one pretext or the other, though promising that before the fixed date for execution and registration of the sale deed, he would get a clearance certificate from the bank and would get the sale deed executed and registered on the stipulated date.

(2.) On notice the defendant had appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit raising preliminary objections challenging the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit contending that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct to file the suit; that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from the Court; that the suit as framed was not maintainable; that the suit so filed has not been properly and correctly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction; that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On merits, the defendant denied the material assertions in the plaint submitting that he had not executed or thumb marked the alleged agreement to sell and he had no intention to sell his land; that no amount was ever paid by the plaintiff to answering defendant; as a matter of fact the alleged agreement to sell was a forged document being manipulated and procured by plaintiff in active connivance with his uncle Dharam Dutt, Ex-Sarpanch as well as Document Writer; that no amount whatsoever was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.