Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- C. M. No. 7710-C of 2012 :

Allowed as prayed for.

C. M. No. 7711-C of 2012 :

This is application for impleading legal representatives of Ranjit Kumar – defendant no.1 (since deceased). It is alleged in the application that defendant no.1 has left behind widow and two sons, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, who are the applicantappellants, as his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of Ranjit Kumar – defendant no.1 (since deceased), for the purpose of this appeal.

Main Appeal :

2. Legal representatives of defendant no.1 have filed this second appeal.

3. Respondent no.1-plaintiff filed suit against Ranjit Kumar and others alleging that Ranjit Kumar – defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit property (petrol pump along with building and machinery) to the plaintiff for Rs.8,00,000/- and received Rs.6,00,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 12.03.1998. License for petrol pump has been granted by defendant no.7/respondent no.3 – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Defendants no.2 to 6 are in unauthorized occupation of the petrol pump. Defendant no.2 is respondent no.2 in this second appeal, whereas suit against defendants no.3 to 6 was dismissed by the trial court under Order 9 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC). It was agreed that defendant no.1 would get the premisses vacated from defendants no.2 to 6. Sale deed was to be executed on 12.09.1999 and vacant possession of the property was to be handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but defendant no.1 committed breach thereof. Accordingly, plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement dated 12.03.1998 and in the alternative, claimed recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- as refund of earnest money and Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and compensation.

4. Only defendant no.1 contested the suit, whereas defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte and defence of defendant no.7 was struck off and suit against defendants no.3 to 6 was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC, as already mentioned.

5. Defendant no.1 broadly denied the plaint averments. He denied that he is owner of the suit property. He pleaded that he had taken the suit land on lease and it was further leased out to defendant no.7 by him. Defendant no.7 granted license of petrol pump to defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 had no right to transfer the suit property being not owner and also had no right to transfer the petrol pump’s license to the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 alleged that he had purchased two tanker lorries and at that time, Mr. Davinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate obtained his signatures on various documents including blank papers, which had been converted into impugned agreement.

6. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2010, decreed the plaintiff’s suit for alternative relief for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- against defendant no.1 with interest @ 9% per annum from 12.03.1998 (date of agreement) till date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by defendant no.1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2012. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant no.1 have filed this second appeal.

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

8. Plaintiff, besides himself appearing in the witness-box, examined Scribe and one attesting witness of the agreement. All of them broadly stated according to the plaintiff’s version. On the other hand, there is solitary statement of defendant no.1, as per his own version.

9. Plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove due execution of the