The court emphasized the importance of matching signatures, entitlement to raise the plea of readiness and willingness despite denying the execution of documents, the effect of material interpolation in a document, and the discretionary nature of granting a decree for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. - This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA-1494-2016 (Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Khushal Singh) and RSA-1618-2016 (Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Khushal Singh).

2. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed challenging a common judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby two civil appeals, bearing Civil Appeal No. 22515/2011-12 (Khushal Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal) and Civil Appeal No. 22514/2010-2012 (Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Khushal Singh), were decided.

3. In the present case, dispute relates to half share of House No.1481 to 1483 and 154/111-2 min, situated at Katra Jalianwala, Amritsar, measuring 100 sq. yards. Based on an agreement to sell dated 12.12.1988 regarding the property in question with the owner i.e. the present appellant/ defendant against a total sale consideration of Rs.3 lacs, having paid an advance of Rs.30000/-, a suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by respondent/plaintiff . It was also pleaded in the suit that as per the original agreement dated 12.12.1988, sale deed was to be executed within a period of 05 months thereof, however, on account of civil suit having been filed at the instance of one of the sister and brother of the appellant/ defendant, the same could not be got executed within the aforesaid time and another agreement-cum-receipt dated 23.09.1989 was executed between the parties with a stipulation that the sale deed would be executed within 15 days of decision of the said Civil Suit. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs.1 lac was received by the appellant/ defendant on 19.07.1989 followed by receipt of another sum of Rs.20000/- and thus, in the document dated 23.09.1989, it was also recorded that the appellant / defendant had received a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs towards sale consideration. As per the plaint, having failed to get the sale deed executed despite repeated requests, the respondent/ plaintiff was compelled to file the suit.

4. Upon notice, the appellant/ defendant appeared and contested the suit by way of filing his written statement, denying the execution of agreement to sell dated 12.12.1988 as well as the receipt of earnest money, besides even denying all other subsequent documents including the receipt dated 19.07.1989 and also the agreement to sell dated 23.09.1989 as pleaded in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the aforesaid documents were in fact an outcome of collusion between the respondent/ plaintiff and the brothers/ sisters of the appellant/ defendant having played fraud upon him.

5. Parties led their respective evidence. Upon consideration, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009 partly decreed the suit in favour of respondent/ plaintiff for alternate relief of refund of Rs.1.5 lacs along with interest @ 12.5% per annum from the date of execution of agreement to sell till realization of the decretal amount, however, denying the relief of possession by way of specific performance.

6. Aggrieved thereof, following two separate appeals came to be filed:-

i) Civil Appeal No. 22515/2011-12, titled as 'Khushal Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal', challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, declining the relief of possession by way of specific possession in favour of respondent/ plaintiff; and

ii) Civil Appeal No.22514/2010 titled as 'Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Khushal Singh', challenging the judgment and decree for refund of amount passed in favour of respondent/ plaintiff.

7. The aforesaid two appeal came to be decided by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide common judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 to the following effect:-

a) Civil Appeal No. 22515/2011-12, titled as 'Khushal Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal', was allowed granting decree for possession by way of specific performance in favour of respondent/ plaintiff, on deposit of balance sale consideration;

b) Civil Appeal No. 22514/2010