KEWAL SINGH Vs. MEENA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 20.08.2016, and as even the appeal preferred against the said decree failed, and was dismissed on 07.12.2017, he is before this Court in Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement, dated 06.09.2010, and in the alternative for recovery. In brief, the case set out by him was that the suit property was owned and possessed by the defendant, who agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff alongwith all the rights therein, for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Rs. 3,50,000/-were received by defendant as earnest money. The date fixed for execution of the sale deed was 01.11.2011. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Shahkot, alongwith balance sale consideration, but the defendant failed to appear for execution of the sale deed. Thus, the suit.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, she denied execution of the agreement to sell, as also receipt of the earnest money. The agreement in question was alleged to be forged and fabricated document. In fact, plaintiff had very cordial relations with the husband of the defendant, and they used to lend and borrow money from each other, and they even purchased a few properties jointly. In 2008, husband of the defendant was in acute financial crises, owing to losses he had suffered in business, and as a result on 01.05.2008 he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from plaintiff, on interest @ 2% per month. While lending money, plaintiff got a writing on letter pad alongwith a blank cheque of the borrowed amount. For, Naresh Kumar, husband of the defendant could not return the borrowed amount by the agreed date, on 19.08.2008, defendant and her husband settled past accounts including interest, and the total amount due worked out to be Rs.6,00,000/-. And, defendant agreed to repay the loan amount within one year, with interest as settled. However, to secure the repayment of loan, plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant and her husband on blank stamp papers. But, as defendant and her husband were not in a position to pay the borrowed amount, the date for repayment was extended to 06.09.2010. But, on 07.09.2011, as defendant was still not in a position to repay the borrowed amount, she obtained gold loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-against deposit of gold ornaments with ICICI Bank, Nakodar Branch. And on 08.09.2011 the entire borrowed amount, including interest, was settled, and accordingly husband of the defendant, as instructed by the plaintiff, deposited Rs.7,00,000/- in his savings bank account, and Rs.3,00,000/- in one of the business accounts, under the name 'M/s Major Cloth House', in State Bank of Patiala, Shahkot Branch. Despite that plaintiff misused the blank signed stamp papers given by the defendant and fabricated the agreement to sell. Thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.