VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MADAN LAL CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff, has filed this appeal being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rajpura, as well as judgment and decree dated 04.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff, has been dismissed.

(2.) Present appeal has been filed challenging both the said judgements and decrees.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.05.2005 in respect to the suit property as described in the plaint and in the alternate for recovery of Rs. 6,37,200/-. It is further prayed that in case the Court reaches a conclusion that Rs. 4,12,200/- was not received by the defendant at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 24.05.2005, the plaintiff was ready to pay a sum of Rs. 6,37,200/-. It is pleaded that the defendant being the owner of the suit property agreed to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs. 6,37,200/-. Defendant purchased the non judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 38,500/-, which was paid by the plaintiff. Sale deed dated 24.05.2005, was executed in the plaintiff's favour after receiving a sum of Rs. 4,12,200/- in cash and a draft dated 23.05.2005 for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Sale deed was claimed to be attested by Amrinder Singh, Sadhu Singh and Balwinder Singh, the defendant and Vijay Kumar Goyal on behalf of the plaintiff. The sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar on 24.05.2005, in the presence of witnesses, but an objection was raised by the Sub-Registrar, Rajpura that the Phrase 'HUF' has been mentioned in the sale deed, but the same was not mentioned in the jamabandi attached with the sale deed, where the ownership of the land was reflected. The phrase 'HUF' was to be removed from the sale deed. The defendant is claimed to have returned the draft of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the plaintiff's agent namely Vijay Kumar Goyal. However, the defendant developed a mala fide intention and did not come forward for execution of the sale deed, though a sum of Rs. 4,12,200/- already stood paid to him. Registered notice dated 23.08.2005 was issued to the defendant. Reply was given by the defendant but he did not come forward for execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit was filed.