The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must prove the execution of the agreement for specific performance, and the validity of a sale-deed executed by a power of attorney holder can be upheld if there is no proof of fraud or misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - Appellant-plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal challenging judgments and decrees dated 22.09.2014 and 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon and learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, respectively, whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 09.01.2001 filed by the plaintiff, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that, appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.01.2001 with the averments that defendant No.1 was the owner of plot No.50 measuring 1.5 Kanals situated at Sector 21, Urban Estate Gurgaon vide allotment/intimation No.8650 dated 19.05.1986. Plot in question was under litigation as defendant No.4 i.e., Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had no such site at the spot, therefore, another plot bearing No.20 in Sector 5, Urban Estate, Gurgaon vide allotment No.130 dated 24.08.1997 at a new rate, was offered to defendant No.1. It is pleaded that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 09.01.2001 in respect to the said plot for a sum of `15,00,000/- out of which appellant/plaintiff paid a sum of `5,00,000/- to defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the agreement. Remaining consideration amount was agreed to be paid by appellant/plaintiff to defendant No.1 at the time of transfer of the said plot by HUDA department/execution and registration of sale deed in his favour, which would be done when defendant No.1 would secure possession of the newly offered plot. Appellant/plaintiff further pleaded that it was agreed that defendant No.1 would give one month's notice to the plaintiff after taking possession of the newly offered plot.

3. However, defendant No.1 failed to execute the sale-deed in terms of the agreement to sell, whereas the plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Plaintiff, it is asserted, came to know that defendant No.1 executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 on 31.10.2001 in respect to the plot in question, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Nuh and that defendant No.2 with a mala-fide and dishonest intention transferred the said plot in favour of his wife, defendant No.3, without any sale consideration and without the knowledge and notice of defendant No.1. It is pleaded that on inquiry from HUDA on 20.12.007 plaintiff came to know that defendant No.2 had already contracted to sell the plot to one Dalip Singh by way of agreement, who had further informed defendant No.4 on 06.06.2005 not to transfer the said plot to anyone. It is pleaded that defendants No.2 to 4 had colluded with each other and transferred the abovesaid plot in favour of defendant No.3. Appellant/plaintiff called upon defendant No.1 to admit claim of the plaintiff and execute sale-deed in his favour in terms of the agreement dated 09.01.2001 after receipt of balance sale-consideration, but defendant No.1 refused to do so on 20.12.2007. Hence, the suit was filed on 24.12.2007.

4. Suit was contested by the defendants with defendant No.1 filing a separate written statement, which was adopted by defendants No.2 and 3. A preliminary objection was taken by defendant No.1 that the suit was based upon forged and fabricated document, which the answering defendant has never signed/executed. The said document, it is stated, did not bear his original signatures, which are in fact a printed copy, which were electronically scanned from the second page of General Power of Attorney dated 31.10.2001 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, duly submitted before HUDA for the purpose of execution of Conveyance Deed of the plot, in question. It is pleaded that plaintiff gained access to the documents in order to achieve his ulterior motives. It is denied that defendant No.1 ever signed or executed agreement to sell dated 09.01.2001 in favour of the plaintiff or that he