DAYA CHAND Vs. HARTEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant Dayachand under Sec.96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2004 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 89/2004 (Hartej Singh & Anr. Vs. Daya Chand) decreeing the suit filed by plaintiffs for specific performance.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as may be gathered from the file, are to the effect that the defendant-appellant, who is the allottee of agricultral land measuring 24.10 bigha in Tehsil Annopgarh, to meet his requirements is is said to have agreed to sell his land for a consideration of Rs.5,15,000 on 01.01.1999 and against the sale received Rs.4,65,000/- on that very day executing an agreement in favour of the plaintiffs to that effect and handed over possession of the land in dispute to them. It is alleged that since then the plaintiffs are tilling the land in question and are paying the revenue from time to time. As per the condition of the agreement the balance consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiffs at the time of registry, however, the defendant on one pretex or other did not complete his part of transaction and on the fixed date for registery when plaintiffs reached the office of Registrar, Anoopgarh alongwith stamps and balance amount the defendant did not turn up and thereafter demanded additional amount of Rs.3 lacs as the price of land in question soared high and he wanted to sell the land in question to some other person by dispossessing him, therefore, he filed the suit praying for a decree for specific performance of the contract. As against this, the defendant has denied the sale agreement entered into with the plaintiff or receiving Rs.4,65,000/- against the sale consideration rather branded the agreement to be forged one and denied the possession of the plaintiffs, however, stated that in the year 1992 the land in question was given for one year to the father of plaintiff No.1 for temporary cultivation on contract for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter by forging an agreement the disputed land was got allotted in the name of Jaypal and they are in illegal possession of the land and for that matter in the proceedings before the Special Court III, Sri Ganganagar by order dated 06.08.1998 directions were issued for the ownership in favour of the defendant. It was also stated by the defendant that the so called agreement was not acceptable in evidence and the land in dispute in the revenue record entered as 'Gair Khatedari' cannot be a subject matter of sale and therefore also the agreement being in contravention of law is nonest and does not create any right in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendant objected that the stamp for agreement was purchased at Shree Vijaynagar while the same was got written at Anoopgarh which does not bear attestation either by Notary or the Tehsildar and the petition-writer has not made the entry of the same in his register and as such the document is forged and fabricated. It was also stated in the written statement by the defendant that the Sub Divisional Officer by his letter had communicated him to remain present on 15.02.1999 for possession purposes but the possession was not handed over to him and he was told to be informed about it later and thereafter on 30.01.1999 the DCR & R, Talwara informed the defendant to receive possession through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anoopgarh, which also proves that the agreement was forged and fabricated. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.