BED RAM Vs. VIJAY PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against judgment and decree dtd. 27/4/2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby appeal against judgment and decree dtd. 27/5/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) was allowed, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was modified and the respondent/plaintiff was allowed principal relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 12/12/2008 Ex.P 1.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dtd. 12/12/2008 on payment of balance sale consideration. Further prayer was made for restraining the defendant/appellant from alienating the suit property except to the plaintiff. As per the case set up by the respondent, the appellant entered into agreement with the plaintiff for sale of land measuring 8 kanals, for sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000.00 on 12/12/2008. The appellant received a sum of Rs.6,50,000.00 as earnest money and executed the agreement and receipt in presence of witnesses. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 15/6/2009. It was also settled that if the appellant fails to get the property partitioned, the date for registration of sale deed would be automatically extended. It is further averred that the respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15/6/2009, he remained present in the office of Sub Registrar Ballabhgarh along with balance consideration and got his attendance marked. A legal notice was issued on 14/9/2011 asking the appellant to get the sale deed executed but to no avail.

(3.) The appellant/defendant filed the written statement raising preliminary objections inter alia that the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus standi to file the suit and he has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has denied execution of agreement, receipt of earnest money and his liability to execute the sale deed. It has been submitted that the respondent has filed the suit in league with one Nirmal Yadav from whom he (defendant) had taken friendly loan of Rs.4,50,000.00 on interest basis and at the time of said transaction, Nirmal Yadav got his signatures on some blank papers and stamp papers as security. The answering defendant has already paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000.00 to Nirmal Yadav but upon assurance of Nirmal Yadav, he did not demand the signed blank papers and stamp papers from Nirmal Yadav. It is further alleged that plaintiff being relative of Nirmal Yadav misused the said blank papers and has filed the present suit. All other material averments of the plaint have been denied with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.