MALKIAT KAUR & ORS Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a decree, for specific performance of contract, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiff, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that defendant Ajit Singh (now deceased) has entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 0-4 marlas, comprising Khewat No.990, Khatauni No.1660, Khasra No.5058/4203/2674-2675 on 31.8.1992 for a consideration of Rs.20, 000/-, out of which he has paid Rs.18, 000/- to the defendant as earnest money and undertook to pay the balance amount of Rs.2, 000/- at the time of the attestation of the sale deed before the Registrar. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within two months after the completion of the settlement proceedings. The defendant also agreed that in case he fails to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months after the completion of the settlement proceedings, then he will pay the amount of Rs.36, 000/- to the plaintiff and in case the plaintiff fails to get the sale deed executed, the earnest money paid will stand forfeited. The plaintiff has come to know now that the settlement proceedings have been completed and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.2, 000/- to the defendant and asked the defendant to perform his part of contract several times but he failed to do so. The plaintiff also served the defendant with a registered notice through counsel on 20.11993, requiring the defendant to perform his part of contract by executing the sale deed but he failed to get the sale deed executed. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract by way of execution of sale deed of the suit land and in the alternative a decree for recovery of Rs.36, 000/-.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has averred that no such agreement was ever executed by the defendant and in case there is any such agreement, the same is the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation as no consideration was ever received by the defendant. The defendant is an illiterate person and residing at Kiratpur Sahib in Punjab. The father of the parties is residing with the plaintiff and asked the defendant to sign few papers which were required to be given to the settlement authorities, as the settlement operation was going on and took the defendant to Tehsil Head Quarter, Una, and obtained the signature of the defendant on some papers and might have executed the alleged agreement on these papers. Therefore, no such agreement has been executed by the defendant and there is no question of its performance.