JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-13856-C-2018

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-5080-2018 (O&M)

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 06.01.2006 and for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that plaintiff/appellant and defendant No.1 had entered into an oral Agreement to Sell for suit property i.e. Booth No. 11, Phase (Sector 55), Mohali; in pursuance to which, defendant No.1 had received Rs.2 lacs on 16.11.2005; Rs.1 lac on 21.11.2005; Rs.1,50,000/- on 26.11.2005; and further Rs.50,000/-. Thus, total sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid to the defendant No.1 as earnest money. Oral Agreement to Sell was reduced into writing and executed on 06.01.2006 Ex.D1. In the said Agreement, defendant No.1 had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.6.40 lacs as earnest money. Total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.28 lacs. It was agreed that defendant No.1 will get account of the suit property cleared from defendant No.3 PUDA and get the ‘No Due Certificate’. However, defendant No. 1 kept on delaying the matter and cheated. Hence, present suit was filed on 19.12.2009.

3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement stating that oral agreement arrived between the parties to the effect that the total sale consideration of booth payable to defendant no.1 is Rs. 28 lakh, however, the plaintiff’s husband being a property dealer has agreed to bear the expenses for restoration of booth on his own expense. The dues payable to PUDA against its cost is to be paid by Shingara Singh (husband of plaintiff) and the same is to be adjusted out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 28 lakh. It was further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the last date of execution of sale deed was 30 days from the date of NOC. This agreement was not complied by the plaintiff and her husband for want of funds with them payable to PUDA and defendant no.1. Therefore, matter was compromised between the parties with intervention of Jaswinder Singh. Amrik Singh (property dealer), Rajinder Singh (Partner of Shingara Singh), Bua Dass, Raj Kumar and Lal Chand Aryan. As per compromise dated 30.3.2006 the entire payment is to be paid by Shingara Singh within one month 20 days from 31.3.2006 after deducting installment of PUDA to be paid by Shingara Singh and the fine for default of payment of PUDA is to be paid by parties equally. It was also agreed that in case Shingara Singh failed to make the payment within 1 month 20 days from 30.3.2006, then this agreement to sell will stand cancelled. It was also agreed that on 31.3.06 Shingara Singh will pay Rs. 7 lakh to Inderpal and will further pay Rs. 1 lakh on 4.4.2006 and on receiving the amount on 31.3.2006 the receipt of entire payment to be received by Inderpal then he will issue the receipt of total amount received by him. It was further averred that agreement to sell dated 6.1.2006 is false and act of fraud by the plaintiff’s husband as he might have obtained his signatures on blank paper at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 28.11.2005 and the compromise dated 30.3.2006. Further, when plaintiff and her husband failed to make the payment to PUDA after expiry of stipulated time the defendant himself at his expenses got restored the booth after making payment to PUDA by getting a loan from ICICI bans of Rs. 11 Lakh in July 2006 as at that time agreement with the plaintiff and her husband already stood canceled in vi