Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - C. M. No. 1063-C of 2011 :

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Appeal :

2. Defendant Jangir Singh having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.

3. Respondent-plaintiff Dev Singh filed suit against defendant-appellant for possession of the suit land measuring 08 kanals by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.05.2003 and in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/-. Ancillary relief of permanent injunction was also sought.

4. Plaintiff’s case is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- and received Rs.90,000/- as earnest money and executed the impugned agreement dated 16.05.2003. Sale deed was to be executed and registered on 31.05.2004. Accordingly, the plaintiff attended the office of Sub Registrar on 31.05.2004 with requisite amount to get the sale deed executed and registered in terms of agreement, but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement. The plaintiff thereafter served notice dated 24.06.2004 on the defendant requiring him to execute the sale deed, but still the defendant did not do the needful. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed the instant suit.

5. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant alleged that he is not exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, but he is only joint owner in possession thereof along with his brother Gurmej Singh. The defendant denied having executed the impugned agreement or having received earnest money. It was alleged that impugned agreement is forged and fabricated one. The defendant agreed to purchase a Thrasher and old Tractor from the plaintiff on credit and thereupon, the plaintiff obtained a writing from the defendant regarding the said purchase in the shape of agreement and asked the defendant to sign on blank stamp paper. The defendant accordingly affixed his signatures on blank stamp paper in good faith and without reading its contents. The plaintiff then fabricated the impugned agreement. Various other pleas were also raised.

6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2006, instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 12% per month from the date of execution of agreement till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

8. The plaintiff himself stepped into the witness-box and examined both attesting witnesses of the agreement and also its scribe. All of them have supported the plaintiff’s case. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness-box and stated according to his version. Plaintiff has led sufficient cogent and reliable evidence to prove execution of agreement by defendant and payment of earnest money of Rs.90,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant. Plaintiff’s version in this regard is supported by both attesting witnesses of the agreement as well as by its scribe. On the other hand, there is only self-serving bald and oral statement of the defendant, which is not sufficient to rebut the cogent evidence led by the plaintiff.

9. There is another significant aspect of the matter. The defendant has taken self-contradictory stand in the written statement. The defendant alleged that he affixed his signatures on blank stamp papers. The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff obtained writing from the defendant regarding purchase of Thrasher and old Tractor in the shape of agreement and its contents were not read over to him. The defendant has failed to explain whether his signatures were obtained on blank stamp paper or on writing, of which contents were not read over