IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

118

RSA No.1596 of 2022 (O&M)

Reserved on : 12.12.2022

Date of Decision : 20.12.2022

Jasbir Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Vikramjeet Singh & Others

....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.1-

appellant against the impugned judgments and decrees dated 08.01.2020 and

05.05.2022 passed by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court

respectively whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was decreed.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell

dated 08.01.2015. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the defendant

No.1-appellant agreed to sell the suit property to him vide the said

agreement to sell for a total sale consideration of Rs.14,70,000/- out of

which Rs.5,00,000/- were paid as earnest money at the time of execution of

the agreement to sell. It was further agreed that the plaintiff-respondent No.1

would pay a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 11.03.2015 whereafter the

defendant No.1-appellant would execute the sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff-respondent No.1 on 20.03.2015. As per the plaintiff-respondent

No.1 he paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant No.1-appellant on 11.03.2015

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.12.20 17:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

regarding which a writing was typed on the back of the agreement to sell.

However, on 20.03.2015 the defendant No.1-appellant failed to reach the

Office of the Sub Registrar, Tarn Taran for executing the sale deed though

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 reached there with the balance sale

consideration and other expenses. Thereafter, despite repeated requests made

by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the defendant No.1-appellant failed to

execute the sale deed in his favour. Hence, the suit for specific performance

was filed with an alternative relief of recovery of Rs.14,70,000/-. During the

pendency of the suit the defendant No.1-appellant sold the suit property to

defendant No.3-respondent No.3 vide sale deed dated 07.03.2018 and as

such the plaint was amended to assail the said sale deed.

Upon notice the defendant No.1-appellant filed a written

statement raising preliminary objections and averring that no agreement to

sell had been executed by him. According to the defendant No.1-appellant

he had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Satnam Singh, the brother of

the plaintiff-respondent No.1, and had executed a pronote and another

agreement was also executed with Satnam Singh qua the said amount and

that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 might have obtained the thumb impression

and signature of the defendant No.1-appellant at that time. The endorsement

dated 11.03.2015 on the reverse of the agreement to sell was also termed to

be forged and not bearing the signature and thumb impression of defendant

No.1-appellant.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the followings issues

were framed :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit for specific

performance as prayed for ? OPP

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.12.20 17:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

1-A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief

of recovery of Rs.14,70,000/- ? OPP

2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit for

permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3.

Whether the alleged agreement to sell is illegal null

and void without knowledge of the defendant no.1.

OPD

4. Relief.

No evidence was led by the defendant No.1-appellant. Vide

judgement and decree dated 08.01.2020 the Trial Court, based on the

pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, decreed the suit of

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for rec