IMPORTANT POINT
.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The present regular second appeal has been filed at the behest of the defendant being aggrieved of decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance vide the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their original position in the civil suit.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19.11.2011 regarding the land measuring 17 kanals 4 marlas comprising in khewat No. 404, khatoni No. 492, situated within the revenue estate of village Patikara, Tehsil Narnaul.

4. The facts, as averred in the plaint, are that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-. It was stated that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received on the day, when the agreement of sale was executed and another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received by the defendant through her son on 21.01.2012. The sale deed was to be executed upto 19.11.2012. It was averred that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant never appeared in the office of Registrar for executing the sale deed. The plaintiff even served a legal notice upon the defendant but she did not appear to get the sale deed executed and registered. Thereafter, the suit was filed.

5. On notice, the defendant filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, she denied the agreement to sell and further denied that any amount was ever received by her. It was alleged that the agreement to sell was forged and fabricated.

6. The learned trial court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 19.11.2011 qua the suit property for total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff has paid Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is/was ready and willing to perform the part of the contract? OPP

4. If the above said issues are to be proved, whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession by way of specific performance of the contract on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.11.2011 against the defendant? OPP

5. Whether agreement to sell is result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the suit? OPD

7. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit.

8. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD

9. Whether plaintiff has filed false and frivolous suit? OPD

10. Relief.

7. The plaintiff, in order to support his suit, examined PW.1 Pyare Lal and PW.4 Dharamvir, who were attesting witnesses to the agreement. Notary Public, namely Shri Ved Prakash Yadav, Advocate, was examined as PW.2 and the Typist Ranjeet Singh was examined as PW.3. The plaintiff himself deposed as PW.7. The documents, like agreement of sale; legal notice, postal receipts, affidavit duly attested by the Notary Public were exhibited as Ex.PW1/B; Ex.PW5/A; Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C; and Ex.PW6/A.

8. The defendant, in order to rebut the claim of the plaintiff herself appeared as DW.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.DW1/A.

9. The learned trial court, after appreciating the facts and considering the evidence produced, decided issues No.1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issues No.6 to 9 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The net result was that vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2015, the suit was decreed. The defendant was directed to get the sale deed executed and registered in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/B.

10. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, appeal was filed by the defendant. The learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissed the appeal