MOHINDER SINGH Vs. UPAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff - Upar Singh had brought a suit against defendant Mohinder Singh seeking possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.3.2006 with regard to 18 kanals 11 marlas of land situated at village Sanana, Tehsil and District Ropar; in the alternative praying for recovery of Rs.12 lakhs i.e. Rs.6 lakhs paid as earnest money and Rs.6 lakhs as stipulated damages; in addition to craving for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property in any manner or creating any charge over it.

(2.) As per version of the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell 18 kanals 11 marlas of the land belonging to him fully detailed in head-note of the plaint with the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.5,85,000/- per acre; that an agreement in that regard came into being on 31.3.2006; that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the defendant at that time as earnest money; that the final date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 30.9.2006; that the plaintiff had approached the defendant before arrival of the final date with a request to execute the sale deed on 29.9.2006 as 30.9.2006 being Sunday was a holiday but the defendant avoided it on one pretext or the other; that the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ropar on 29.9.2006 and 3.10.2006 i.e. the last working day and first working day of respective months, remaining present there from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; that he was having balance sale consideration amount and the necessary expenses for execution, registration of the sale deed but the defendant did not turn up; that the plaintiff executed an affidavit getting it attested from Sub Registrar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ropar on both the dates just to show his presence in the office of Sub Registrar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ropar on the dates in question. According to the plaintiff, he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and is still ready and willing to do so but the sale transaction could not be completed on account of failure of the defendant to perform his part of the agreement. Ultimately the plaintiff approached the Court for redressal of his grievances, by way of filing the civil suit in question.

(3.) On receipt of notice, the defendant put in appearance in the Court and filed written statement contesting the suit raising preliminary objections, to wit, that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and had filed the suit on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement; that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to bring the suit etc. On merits, the defendant denied having entered into any agreement to sell with the plaintiff as asserted by the plaintiff in the plaint. According to the defendant since no such agreement had been entered into, there was no occasion for him to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Refuting the remaining allegations in the plaint, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.