(216)

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant-Sardari Lal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot, vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.1998, decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the appellant/defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. However, the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.1999, dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the findings as well as the decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Feeling dissatisfied with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, the appellant/defendant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell on the averments that the defendant, being owner in possession of the suit land, entered into an agreement to sell dated 21.01.1994 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.85,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, the defendant allegedly received a sum of Rs.30,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff, and the sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on or before 30.03.1994. It was further pleaded that despite readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed on the stipulated date. According to the plaintiff, he remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar on the date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed along with the balance sale consideration and necessary expenses, but the defendant failed to appear and honour the agreement. Alleging breach of contract on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. The defendant denied execution of the alleged agreement to sell dated 21.01.1994 and also denied receipt of Rs.30,000/- as earnest money. It was specifically pleaded that the agreement in question had been procured by practicing fraud upon the defendant after allegedly administering some intoxicating substance/drugs to him. The defendant further pleaded that he had, in fact, visited the office of the Sub Registrar on 21.01.1994 only for the purpose of attesting/witnessing some other document executed between the plaintiff and one Chuni Lal, and that he had signed the said document in that context alone. It was also averred that on 18/19.03.1994, the defendant came to know that the suit land mentioned in the agreement did not belong to him, as the plaintiff had allegedly tampered with the agreement and altered the figure “7” into “9” in the description of the suit land. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it was contended that the agreement was forged, manipulated and unenforceable in law, and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication and the parties led their respective evidence.

1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement dated 21.1.94 to sell the suit land to the plaintiff? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has always remained and even still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit land by way of specific performance of contract agreement dated 21.1.94? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction prayed for? OPP

5. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the agreement dated 21.