The court's interference with concurrent findings of fact is limited, and the evidence presented by the plaintiff established the execution of the sale deed and passing over of consideration.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

CM-13655-C-2015

This is an application filed by the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay of 17 days in re-filing the present appeal.

Heard on the application.

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed.

This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the appeal filed by the appellant-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiff-respondent Harbans Singh filed the suit for specific performance directing the defendants to specifically perform the contract effected by an oral agreement dated 30.03.2007 entered into by them for transferring by way of sale of the land measuring 02 Kanals 14 Marlas detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated at village Nikko Sarai, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, Distt. Gurdaspur by getting the sale deed dated 30.03.2007 registered. In alternative the recovery of Rs.1,60,000/-by way of refund of the amount paid, has been prayed for.

3. As per the averments in the plaint the defendants agreed and contracted with the plaintiff to sell the land in dispute for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-after obtaining the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/. The stamp papers were purchased and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was executed on 30.03.2007. Plaintiff was also delivered the actual physical possession of the suit land. However, at the time of presentation of the aforesaid sale deed executed by the defendants they slipped away from the Tehsil compound Dera Baba Nanak and did not appear before the Sub Registrar for its registration. Hence this suit.

4. Appellants-defendants contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that they never agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed relied upon by him is false, forged and fabricated document. They never received even a single penny from the plaintiff. With these pleas, they pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court :

1. Whether the defendants executed agreement dated 30.3.2007 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform the contract? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether in alternate plaintiff is entitled to relief of recovery of Rs.1,60,000/? OPP

5. Whether agreement relied upon by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated document? OPD

6. Relief.

6. On appreciating the evidence and material on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs directing the defendants to execute the sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of decree.

7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 12.04.2013, the appellants defendants preferred the appeal. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence, this regular second appeal.

8. I have heard Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants and carefully gone through the paper-book.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that learned courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence. PW2 Santokh Singh the marginal witness of the sale deed dated 30.03.2007 has deposed in the cross-examination that no money was paid to the appellants-defendants in his presence. Similarly, PW4 Nirmal Kumar the scribe of the sale deed has also stated that no money was given or taken in his presence. Thus, he contended that there is no evidence to show that the sale consideration was ever paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.

10. He further contended that the appellants have categorically denied the execution of the sale deed. The pl