UDI RAM Vs. ANANT RAM NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit, for, rendition of a decree for specific performance of contract of sale, executed inter se him, and, the defendant, stood decreed, by the learned trtial Court, and, in an appeal carried therefrom by the aggrieved defendant, hence, before the learned first appellate court, also begot, a verdict in affirmation thereto. The defendant, is, aggrieved from the concurrent judgments, and, decrees recorded against him, upon, civil suit No. 120/1 of 2009, and, upon Civil Appeal No. 14-T/13 of 2013/12, hence, has, thereagainst instituted the instant appeal before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.2.22009 vide which the defendant had agreed to sell the land comprised in Khata No.74, Khatauni No.208, Khasra No.795, 797 and 798, Kita 3, measuring 5-13 bighas, situated in Chak Bagain, Pargana Shilla Ghoond, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. along with single storeyed house having three rooms for sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The oral agreement to sell was entered into in the month of January, 2009, at that time, the possession of suit land was delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had planted 500 apple plants over the suit land. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.09.2009. The plaintiff requested the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- as the plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. Despite the legal notice of 28.7.2009, the defendant threatened to alienate the suit land in favour of the third person. On 22.8.2009, the wife and, son of defendant started interference in the suit land and forcibly tried to dispossess the plaintiff. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No.136/2009 has been registered at police station Theog. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff has prayed that the decree for specific performance of contract of sate dated 22.2.2009 be passed in his favour and further prayed that decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be passed against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein he has taken taken preliminary objections qua the suit of the plaintiff as framed is not competent, plaint deserves to be rejected as the agreement is neither registered nor properly stamped. On merits. The defendant has denied that he had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land for sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendant further denied that he has executed any agreement. The agreement is a forged and fabricated document in view to grab the land of the defendant. The plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank papers on the pretext of exchange of land. It is denied that the earnest money to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The oral agreement has also been denied. It is also denied that in the month of January, 2009, the possession was delivered to the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff has planted the apple orchard over the suit land. The defendant claimed that the electricity meter is also in his name. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff on 22.8.2009 tried to trespass into the house along with 4-5 persons, and, gave beating to the son of the defendant, threw the articles belonging to the defendant and outraged the modesty of wife of the defendant, as, the FIR was registered against the plaintiff at police station Theog. The question of readiness and willingness to perform the agreement does not arise at all as no agreement has been executed.