Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):-

CM No. 13022.C of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

RSA No. 4677 of 2012

Defendant Satish Kumar Narang having lost in both the courts below has filed this second appeal.

2. Respondent/plaintiff Paramjit Singh filed suit against defendant/appellant for possession of the suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.1.2002 and also claimed permanent injunction.

3. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.6 lacs and received Rs. 3 lacs as earnest money and executed agreement dated 11.1.2002. The sale deed was to be executed upto 12.7.2002. Accordingly, after intimating the defendant, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar on 12.7.2002 with requisite amount for getting sale deed executed in terms of the agreement but the defendant did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement whereas the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

4. The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. The defendant alleged that he used to borrow money from the plaintiff who is money lender. The plaintiff used to obtain signatures of defendant on blank cheques and blank stamp papers. Earlier also the plaintiff had prepared false and frivolous agreement in respect of some other property and used the same for pressurizing the defendant to repay the loan amount with higher rate of interest than the agreed rate. The plaintiff has also filed false and frivolous complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) against the defendant, which was pending.

5. The defendant also pleaded that he convened Panchayat to resolve the dispute which was amicably settled vide compromise dated 12.10.2002 according to which the defendant paid Rs.4 lacs to the plaintiff in full and final settlement of his claim.

6. Both the courts below have decreed suit of the plaintiff.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this second appeal. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

8. The plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove his case. He has examined Gopal Dass, Deed Writer, scribe of the impugned agreement and Ashok Kumar PW4, an attesting witness of the agreement, besides the plaintiff himself appearing in the witness box. All these witnesses have stated according to the plaintiff’s version. The plaintiff also examined Stamp Vendor, Narender Kumar, PW6 from whom stamp for impugned agreement was purchased. He has also supported the plaintiff’s case.

9. On the other hand, the defendant himself appeared as DW1 and examined Rajesh Kumar DW2. Both of them broadly stated according to the defendant’s version.

10. Statements of plaintiff and scribe as well as attesting witness of the agreement are sufficient to prove due execution of the agreement by the defendant who has also admitted his signatures thereon. The defendant has produced copy of alleged compromise dated 10.7.2002. However, the same has not been duly proved. Permission for leading secondary evidence of the compromise was not taken. Original compromise was not produced in evidence. Moreover, in complaint under section 138 of the Act, the said compromise was sent to India Security Press, Nasik for determining the age of the revenue stamp affixed on the said document. The Press reported that the revenue receipt in question was issued by the Press on 26.5.2004 and released for the public on 22.6.2004. Consequently, affixation of the said revenue receipt on compromise dated 10.7.2002 (or 12.10.2002?) would manifestly establish that the said compromise has been fabricated by the defendant.

11. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned agreement is unregistered and therefore, the same cannot be specifically enforced. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Hary