The main legal point established in this judgment is the importance of providing evidence to support claims in property disputes and the proper appreciation of evidence by the courts.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J.(Oral) - CM-6031-C-2022

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Main Case

3. The appellant-defendant is aggrieved against the judgement and decree dated 7.12.2021, passed by the first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.10 of 2016, uphodling the judgement and decree dated 7.12.2015, passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, whereby the suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by the respondentplaintiff was decreed against the appellant-defendant.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the defendant-appellant being owner in possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanal 1 marla comprised in khewat No.182 min., khatoni No.265 min., khasra No.32//14/2 (0-4), 16(8-0), 17/1(1-4), 25/2(6-13) situated at village Bapa, Hadbast No.55, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05 and mutation No.4499, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondent for a sale consideration @ 11,00,000/- per acre, and executed agreement to sell dated 25.10.2010. The plaintiff paid the earnest money amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant against a receipt, and 25.9.2011 was fixed as the target date for execution of sale deed. At the time of execution of the agreement, the suit land was mortgaged with the State Bank of India, Naharpur for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- vide Rapat No.580 dated 3.4.2007, and it was undertaken by the defendant that before execution of the sale deed, he would get the suit land reedemed. On 25.9.2011, the sale deed could not be executed, being Sunday and on the next day, i.e. on 26.9.2011, the plaintiff visited the office of the Sub Registrar, Radaur, who was informed that the Tehsildar was not available, so the plaintiff was advised to come on the next day. The plaintiff went again on 27.9.2011, but the defendant did not turn up, however, the plaintiff got his presence marked by way of affidavit duly attested by a Notary. Thereafter, the plaintiff met the defendant on 28.9.2011 and requested him to get the sale deed executed, but the defendant never paid any heed to it. On this cause of action, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract dated 25.10.2010.

5. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and raised preliminary objections like locus standi, maintainability, estoppel, etc. and on merits pleaded that in October, 2010 the defendant intended to send his son abroad and needed money, and because the plaintiff used to lend money to the needy persons, the defendant contacted him and the plaintiff agreed to lend him a sum of 2,50,000/- on interest @ 21/2 % per month against furnishing of two blank signed stamp papers, four recent photographs and six blank signed white papers. On 15.9.2011, the defendant returned the loan amount alongwith interest, but the plaintiff refused to issue any receipt of the same, and misused the blank signed papers by forging the agreement to sell to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. Other averments in the plaint were also denied and in the end, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

6. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court in all, framed seven issues and thereafter, the parties adduced their respective evidence. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

7. Dissatisfied with the judgement and decree dated 7.12.2015, passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal bearing No.10 of 2016, and the same was also dismissed through the impugned judgement and decree dated 7.12.2021. Hence this second appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has argued that as per the agreement to sell dated 25.10.2010, the sale deed was to