GULJINDER SINGH Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent had filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 92,4000/- including interest till the date of filing of the suit. According to the case of the respondent, appellant represented to him that he is owner of certain lands in village Shahpur. Tehsil and District Ludhiana and that the respondent agreed to purchase the land measuring 31K-12M out of the lands for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. It is alleged that whole of the sale amount was given to the appellant and the appellant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent within a period of one month. However, after the agreement, appellant did not execute the sale deed. Subsequently, respondent came to know that one Nasib Kaur against whom the appellant had obtained a decree, had challenged the same in the Court. It is further alleged that the appellant also disclosed that one Harchand Singh claimed to have entered into agreement to sell with Nasib Kaur on 28.5.1982 and Harchand. Singh filed a suit for specific performance against Nasib Kaur and the same is pending. It is further alleged that the appellant failed to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, suit for recovery of Rs. 92,400/- as earnest money was filed by the respondent.

(2.) The suit was decreed. Appeal filed by the appellant against the said decree before the lower Appellate court was dismissed and hence this second Appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit is beyond limitation because the agreement to sell is dated 7.6.1982 and according to the counsel for the appellant, the suit was filed on 18.12.1986. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out to me that the date of filing of the suit mentioned by the counsel for the appellant is not correct and the same is dated 4.6.1985. On verifying the record of the trial Court, it is clear that the suit was filed on 4.6.1985 as per endorsement of the office. When the suit was filed on 4.6.1985, it cannot be said to be beyond limitation. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.