JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The defendant-Manju is in second appeal against concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the Courts below. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their original status.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a house situated at Mohalla Tibri Gujran, Near Bawal Chowk, Rewari (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.05.2008. It was the case of the plaintiff that the agreement to sell dated 13.05.2008 had been executed with regard to the suit property. The total sale consideration was Rs. 6,50,000/-. Rs. 5,80,000/- was paid as earnest money. The date fixed for the execution of the sale deed was 29.10.2008. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Since on 29.10.2008, there was a Government holiday, the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant on 30.10.2008 and called upon her to remain present in the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned for execution and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 30.10.2008 from 09:00 A.M. to 05:00 P.M. alongwith the balance sale consideration and other expenses but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff called upon the defendant repeatedly to perform her part of the contract but to no avail. She finally refused on 14.11.2008 leading to the filing of the suit.

3. Initially the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on 19.02.2009 and an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 13.01.2010 was passed. However, subsequently an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed which was dismissed on 29.10.2014 but in appeal, vide judgment dated 26.09.2017, the same was allowed and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for trial.

4. The defendant filed a written statement raising a number of preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, concealment of material facts etc. The execution of the agreement was denied. It was averred that the husband of the defendant was an alcoholic and was having money transactions with the plaintiff since the year 2003. He used to borrow money from the plaintiff and used to return the same. The plaintiff used to obtain the signatures and thumb impressions of the defendant on some blank papers/stamp papers as security for the amount borrowed by her husband as the suit property was in her name. Since he had an evil eye on the suit property, the plaintiff misused the blank signed papers and prepared a forged and fabricated agreement to sell. The receipt of earnest money of Rs. 5,80,000/- was denied. A stand was also taken that the market value of the suit property was not less than Rs. 1 crore and, therefore, there was no question of alienating the suit property for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-. A stand was also taken that the defendant was having strained relations with her husband and she had been living separately for the last six months prior to the filing of the written statement. She alongwith her children were being maintained by her elder son Bharat who was working as a carpenter. Her husband did not come home for several days and did not provide any expenses to her for her day-to-day life. It was averred that a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- had been borrowed from the plaintiff which had duly been returned. It was averred that she had constructed a residential house on the suit property and had been living in the same. All other averments were denied.

5.