JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Defendant is in second appeal. For convenience, the parties are being referred to by their original position in the suit before the Court of first instance i.e. the appellant as defendant and the respondent as plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance claiming that he along with defendant jointly purchased two parts of land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas vide sale deed dated 24.01.2005 and land measuring 7 marlas 252 sq. feet vide sale deed dated 13.07.2005. Plaintiff is owner to the extent of 2/3rd share and defendant owned to the extent of l/3rd share in the purchased land. Parties orally divided the same. Defendant was allotted a separate portion of land measuring 51'-4' x 107'-6'. Rest of the property came to the possession of plaintiff where he installed petrol pump. Vide Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.2008, defendant agreed to sell his l/3rd share to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.24 lakh. On the date of execution of agreement to sell, Rs. 10 lakh was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money. The parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 11.08.2011. Plaintiff vide communication dated 17.05.2011 i.e. even prior to agreed date requested the defendant to execute the sale deed in her favour on receipt of balance sale consideration. The communication was responded to by the defendant through his counsel on 31.05.2011 denying execution of agreement to sell. Receipt of earnest money was also denied and it was claimed that agreement to sell was forged document. It was claimed that plaintiff obtained signatures of defendant on blank typed papers on the pretext of getting petrol pump allotted in the name of the defendant. Plaintiff vide communication dated 06.06.2011 refuted the claims of defendant and reiterated the factum of there being a valid legal agreement to sell. On 14.06.2011, the instant suit was filed seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance and in alternate decree for recovery of Rs.20 lakh i.e. double of the earnest money pleading cause of action having accrued to the plaintiff on 04.06.2011 i.e. when plaintiff came to know of denial of agreement to sell by the defendant.

2.1. Defendant appeared and filed written statement reiterating the version and stand taken in the communication dated 31.05.2011. Defendant admitted being owner to the extent of l/3rd share in the joint land purchased vide sale deeds dated 24.01.2005 and that 13.07.2005. It was denied that any partition ever took place. Defendant claimed that oral settlement was for the purpose of user only. Defendant reiterated that the plaintiff misrepresented defendant and took his signatures on blank papers in good faith on the pretext of assuring him of commissioning/allotment of petrol pump. Defendant further claimed that he executed one Power of Attorney dated 27.07.2005 in favour of his wife regarding his share in the property. Husband of plaintiff namely K.R. Handa is one of the attesting witnesses to the said attorney and thus, it is highly improbable that despite being in knowledge of the fact that defendant has authorized his wife qua the property, the plaintiff shall enter into an agreement to sell with defendant and not with his wife.

2.2. Plaintiff filed her rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the plaint.

2.3. On the basis of pleadings, Trial Court culled out following issues putting the suit filed by plaintiff to trial:-

1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.02.2008? OPP.

2) Whether plaintiff is entitled alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 20 lac as alleged? OPP.

3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of the property in dispute? OPP.

4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

5) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

6) Whether suit is time barred? OPD.

7) Whether plaintiff ha