ANAND KUMAR ALIAS AAD RAM Vs. MUNSHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Munsha Singh had brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance against defendant Anand Kumar alias Aad Ram on the averments that defendant being owner of land measuring 4 kanals 17 marlas i.e. 1/6 share of total land measuring 29 kanals situated at village Tootwala, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka had entered into an agreement to sell the same with plaintiff on 3/8/2011 @ Rs.6,60,000.00 per acre, receiving a sum of Rs.2,06,000.00 as earnest money, in presence of witnesses Sh.Kanshi Ram, SC Lamberdar and Sh.Mukhtiar Singh; that the final date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 30/1/2012. According to the plaintiff since 30/1/2012 was a holiday on account of elections, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Tehsil Khuian Sarwar on 31/1/2012 and remained present there outside office of Joint Sub Registrar from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; that he was having balance sale consideration amount, but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed; that the plaintiff got marked his presence by executing an affidavit, which was got attested from Notary Public; that the plaintiff had also served a notice dtd. 1/5/2012 sent through registered AD post upon the defendant but to no effect, rather subsequently defendant refused to perform his part of contract and threatened to alienate the suit property to some other person. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement and is still ready and willing to do so. Feeling aggrieved by the act and conduct of the defendant, who had not come forward for execution and registration of the sale deed, the plaintiff brought the suit in question.

(2.) On notice the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit raising preliminary objections that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the present suit; that the plaintiff had concealed true and material facts from the Court; that the defendant had neither entered into an agreement to sell his land measuring 4 kanals 17 marlas with the plaintiff on 3/8/2011 nor he had received an amount of Rs.2,06,000.00 as earnest money. According to the defendant, as a matter of fact, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000.00 from the plaintiff for his domestic needs and at that time the plaintiff had got his signatures on some blank stamp papers for security purpose, in addition to that the plaintiff had also obtained two blank cheques duly signed by the defendant giving an assurance that as and when the amount was repaid, the blank stamp papers and blank cheques bearing signatures of defendant would be returned to him and would not be misused by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, he has repaid the borrowed amount along with interest within stipulated time in presence of the witnesses but the plaintiff did not return those blank papers on the pretext that he had put those papers at some place and subsequently the plaintiff in connivance with Kanshi Ram and Mukhtiar Singh prepared a false and forged agreement on blank stamp papers by showing value of suit land as Rs.6,60,000.00, whereas in the year 2011, the market value of the land at village Tootawala was Rs.15.00 lacs. According to the defendant in that way, the plaintiff in connivance with Kanshi Ram and Mukhtiar Singh had played a fraud with him and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. On merits, the defendant had controverted the material assertions in the plaint and reiterating the averments in the preliminary objections. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

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