RSA No. 4706 of 2010 (O&M). Case: Darshan Singh Vs Dalip Kaur. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | RSA No. 4706 of 2010 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Manish Kumar Singla, Adv. and For Respondents: Amarjit Markan, Adv. |
| Judges | Arun Palli, J. |
| Issue | Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 20, 20(2)(b) |
| Citation | AIR 2015 P&H 10 |
| Judgement Date | October 06, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Arun Palli, J.
-
Suit filed by the plaintiff (late Jarnail Singh) was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2009. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010. That is how, the defendant is before this court in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit. In short, the plaintiff prayed for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, and by way of consequential relief a decree for injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property, in any manner. It was pleaded that defendant (Darshan Singh) entered into an agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, with the plaintiff qua the suit property i.e. a residential house at Village Rasulra, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- were purportedly paid by way of earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale-deed. The date first fixed for execution of the sale-deed was 30.06.2000, which was extended to 29.12.2000 by the parties with mutual consent, vide writing dated 28.06.2000. It was maintained that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. And he even appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Khanna, but the defendant did not turn up. Thus, the suit.
-
In defence, the defendant denied the very existence and execution of the agreement in question. It was pleaded that no such agreement was executed by him and consequently mere was no occasion to receive the earnest money. The agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, was purported to be a forged and fabricated document.
3-4. The trial court, on an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, found that the plaintiff to prove the agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, examined; P.W. 1 Surjit Singh, PW2 Rajinder Singh, marginal witnesses of the agreement. PW4 Narender Kumar (Deed Writer), who scribed the agreement in question, also deposed unequivocally that on 30.06.1999, defendant executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit property and received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money in their presence. It was also deposed that after the agreement was scribed, the same was read-over and explained to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial