SHIV RAM Vs. RAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff-Shiv Kumar had filed a suit against defendant-Ran Singh seeking possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 24/8/2002, in the alternative seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.3.00 lacs along with interest and as a consequential relief craving that the defendant be restrained from alienating the suit land to any other person except the plaintiff.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant had entered into an agreement dtd. 24/8/2002 with the plaintiff to sell 10 kanals 15 marlas of land comprised in khewat No. 118 min., khatauni No. 170 min. rect no. 48, killa no. 3/2(0-6), 4/2(2-9), Rect. No. 49 killa no. 1(8-0) kittas 3 for a consideration amount at the rate of Rs.3.00 lacs per 8 kanals, total Rs.4,12,500.00, receiving Rs.1,50,000.00 as earnest money; that both the parties had agreed that the sale deed would be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on or before 23/8/2003 and in case the plaintiff failed to perform his part of agreement, then the earnest money would be forfeited and if the defendant did not perform his part of agreement, then the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered by way of filing a suit for specific performance; that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff through his wife offered the balance sale consideration on 22/8/2003 asking the defendant to execute and got registered the sale deed but it was informed that on 23/8/2003 and 24/8/2003 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday; that the defendant had promised to be present in the office of Sub Registrar on 26/8/2003, which was the next working day for registration of the sale deed; that the wife of plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar on 26/8/2003 along with balance sale consideration amount and sufficient money for bearing other expenses and she remained there from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but the defendant did not turn up, then wife of the plaintiff got her presence marked in the office and got attested her affidavit showing her readiness for completion of the transaction; that the plaintiff himself was in District Jail, Kurukshetra as an under trial being an accused in FIR No. 195 dtd. 15/10/2002, therefore wife of the plaintiff was acting on his behalf being fully authorized to do everything in respect of execution of the sale deed; that the wife of the plaintiff had personally approached the defendant on 27/8/2003 requesting him to get the sale deed executed but the defendant put off the matter on one pretext or the other; thereafter the wife of the plaintiff served a legal notice dtd. 5/12/2003 upon the defendant calling upon him to get the sale deed executed and registered but the defendant avoided receipt of that notice, which was returned back unclaimed. As per the version of the plaintiff, he is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour but to no effect, rather the defendant threatened to alienate the suit land to some other person, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit.

(3.) 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 suit was not maintainable; that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to bring the same; that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction; that the plaintiff had concealed true and material facts from the Court and plaintiff was not entitled to any relief since he was a money lender and the answering defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 from him and in lieu of security of the said amount, the plaintiff had taken thumb impressions of the defendant on some blank papers, however, later on defendant returned the entire amount to plaintiff in presence of one Dilwar Singh and when the defendant demanded his stamp papers back, then the plaintiff did not return the same and later on, he has converted that stamp paper into present alleged agreement to sell, which is totally false, fake and forged document. On merits, the defendant denied having entered into any agreement with the plaintiff or receiving any money from him as sale consideration. According to the defendant, no terms and conditions as alleged by the plaintiff were ever agreed upon between the parties, therefore there was no question to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.