JUDGMENT

Arun Monga J. (Oral)

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015, declining the relief qua specific performance and instead, passing a money decree.

3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below:

3.1 Defendant No.5 executed power of attorney for suit land in favour of defendant No.6, who agreed to sell out property to defendant No.1. The latter himself did not obtain the sale deed in his favour but executed an agreement to sell this property to plaintiff-appellant. Through his general power of attorney, defendant No.1 entered into agreement to sell dated 06.03.2004 in favour of plaintiff on receiving earnest money Rs.7,000/-. Sale deed was to be executed in terms of agreement to sell on or before 06.05.2004. The attesting witnesses were Mukesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. Defendant No.1 had already received balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.25,436/- from plaintiff, on 03.05.2004 and executed a valid receipt at the back of agreement to sell dated 06.03.2004. Defendant No.1 did not turn up on the appointed date, i.e., 06.05.2004 in the office of Sub Registrar, Jagadhri for executing sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff got his presence marked. Later on, defendant No.1 in-connivance with defendants No.2 to 4 sold out suit property through different sale deeds dated 27.08.2004 and 04.01.2005 to defendants No.2 to 4, though possession of suit property was with plaintiff. He made complaint against defendant No.1 under Sections 420 & 406 IPC. Defendant No.1 had neither executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff nor did he return sale consideration amount received by him even after making repeated requests.

4. Upon notice, defendant No.1 filed separate written statement controverting averments of the plaintiff in toto and pleaded that no agreement to sell in question had ever been executed by him in favour of plaintiff regarding suit property. He averred that it was a false and fabricated document because plaintiff obtained signatures of defendant No.1 on 3-4 blank papers when he was in good terms as a security of his 50% share plus profit Rs.5,000/- which was to be fetched out of sale of suit property as he (defendant No.1) and plaintiff were dealing in property business. They had jointly agreed to purchase it from defendant No.6 being power of attorney of defendant No.5, who executed agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.1, but later on, plaintiff surrendered his all rights after receiving his shared amount Rs.32,500/-plus profit amount Rs.5,000/- and a receipt to that effect had been executed by him in favour of defendant no.1. He further averred that when he demanded blank papers from plaintiff, he did not return the same, rather same might have been used by him for creation of false and fabricated agreement to sell in question. Prayer for dismissal of suit was made.

4.1 Defendants No.2 to 4 filed their joint written statement pleading themselves to be in possession of suit property by virtue of different sale deeds. They claimed themselves to be bonafide purchasers without notice of any agreement in favour of plaintiff regarding suit property. They also denied averments made in the plaint and pleaded agreement to sell in question to be false and fabricated documen