The court emphasized the importance of proving the validity of agreements and the execution of related documents, and highlighted the significance of readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - Suit for specific performance of Agreement dated 20.11.2003, declaration and for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2013. The appeal preferred by the defendant No.1 against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 15.02.2019. Hence, the defendant No.1 is now before this court in Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

2. In brief, the pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus. The plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 20.11.2003 with defendant No.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs. Defendant No.1 was paid the entire sale consideration through a bank draft and a receipt in the said regard was also endorsed at the back of the Agreement to Sell by him. Defendant No.1 further executed a Will on 20.11.2003 as well as an affidavit dated 20.11.2003 acknowledging the receipt of the entire sale consideration, the execution of the said Will and the Agreement to Sell, with an undertaking not to cancel the deal struck between the parties. Therefore, since the entire sale consideration was paid and the possession of the suit property delivered to the plaintiff, he became owner in possession of the same and only formal transfer and ownership of suit property remained to be carried out.

3. Defendant No.1 also executed a General Power of Attorney dated 20.11.2003 in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff further got the conveyance deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 from the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) to avoid any complications in the future. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to do every thing on his part for the execution of the sale deed in his favour. However, as the defendant was offered a higher amount of money by some other person, he became greedy and intended to alienate the suit property to a third person. The defendant No.1 further cancelled the irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of the plaintiff vide Cancellation Deed dated 09.07.2004.

4. On being put to notice, defendant No.2 failed to appear as a result of which he was proceeded against ex-parte by the trial court. Defendant No.1 while filing his written statement denied the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 20.11.2003 in favour of the plaintiff. He averred that the Agreement to Sell dated 20.11.2003 was a forged and fabricated document prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with one Subhash Sharma, Property Dealer, and some other witnesses. It was claimed by the defendant No.1 that he was in need of money for marriage of his daughter due to which he agreed to sell the suit property to Subhash Sharma for a sum of Rs.26,75,000/-. Accordingly, he entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 20.07.2003 with said Subhash Sharma and received Rs.02 lakhs as earnest money. However, since Subhash Sharma was unable to arrange the balance sale consideration, the date for execution of sale deed i.e. 31.10.2003 was extended. Thereafter, Subhash Sharma after taking defendant No.1 into confidence, obtained his signatures on blank stamp papers, having some printed material on them. The defendant No.1 also claimed to have received a sum of Rs.12 lakhs through a draft at that time from Subhash Sharma on the pretext that he was paying Rs.14 lakhs as earnest money and the remaining sale consideration would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. In the written statement it was further alleged that Subhash Sharma got a General Power of Attorney executed from defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff by misrepresenting facts by taking advantage of the defendant's weak eye sight and other medical ailments. It was further alleged that Subhash Sharma also got the signatures of defendant No.1 on various documents without disclosing their contents, in collusion with the officials of Sub Registrar and