J.S. MINERALS Vs. PAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the plaintiff, in a nut -shell, is that plaintiff has entered into an agreement to purchase the land measuring 4 bighas 6 biswas with the defendant through her father and attorney on 02.06.2004 for a total consideration of rupees Rs.9,20,000/ -, i.e., rupees two lakhs per bigha.

(2.) A sum of rupees one lakh was paid to the defendant as earnest money. According Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No. to the plaintiff, no time limit was fixed in the agreement for the purpose of execution of sale deed. The original agreement dated 02.06.2004 was supplemented by a supplementary agreement dated 19.10.2004, whereby the aforesaid land was agreed to be sold by the defendant for a total sum of rupees 25,80,000/ -, i.e., @ rupees 6 lakhs per bigha. According to the plaintiff, the entire payment was received by the defendant as per agreement dated 19.10.2004. The defendant has handed over the possession of the suit land. It was covered by the plaintiff by way of raising boundary and he is in possession of the same. Plaintiff has immediately applied for permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract and has already performed the part of contract by making full and final payment to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, there was an understanding between the parties that the time will not be an essence for the purpose of agreement and the time limit mentioned in the agreement was for expediting the matter. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendant with an ulterior motive and in a fraudulent manner may transfer, alienate and encumber the property in question in favour of a third party. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has executed a special power of attorney through her General Power of Attorney for the purpose of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action has accrued on 02.06.2004 and thereafter on 19.10.2004. It is in these circumstances, the suit was filed for specific performance and permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. The defendant has taken a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has failed to give correct details of the sole proprietorship. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. According to the defendant, one of the documents filed by the plaintiff was forged. It is further stated that the parties have entered into only two agreements, dated 11.06.2004 and 12.06.2004. The first agreement was signed between the parties for the purpose of obtaining revenue permission and the second was the actual agreement. The original of the second agreement was kept by the plaintiff and a carbon copy and photocopy was given to the defendant. He signed some blank stamp papers for bonafide use of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has mis -used/manipulated the stamp papers with illegal motive. On merits, the defendant has stated that two agreements were signed as per the preliminary objections taken and some blank papers bonafidely were signed for the use of plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has forged an agreement, which was not required in the light of agreement dated 12.06.2004. It was denied by the defendant that no time limit was fixed. According to the defendant, the last date for the purpose was 02.09.2004. The defendant has rescinded the agreement on 29.11.2004. He has also issued a notice by way of publication in the daily edition of 'Punjab Kesari' dated 13.12.2005. He has denied the signing of agreement dated 19.10.2004. According to the defendant, he was in possession of the suit land. It is further stated that the plaintiff has failed to make the payment as per agreement dated 12.06.2004. The raising of the boundaries was denied. According to the defendant, learned Civil Judge, Nalagarh has ordered on an interim application of the defendant that the possession of the suit land shall remain with the defendant. The defendant has denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. According to the defendant, the time was the essence of the contract and when the plaintiff failed to pay the balance amount as per agreement dated 12.06.2004, the defendant has no alternative except to write a letter dated 29.11.2004. The plaintiff was required to obtain permission prior to 02.09.2004.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 10.07.2007: