Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The above appeal has been filed against the original judgment and decree dated 19 .11.2004 passed by the Civil Judge Ghaziabad in original suit no.793 of 1999 whereby the suit for specific performance of contract to sell dated 14 . 5.1998 in respect of house described in the plaint has been decreed.
(2.) The background facts may be noticed in brief:- Mukesh Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed above mentioned suit on the allegations that the defendant is owner of Plot/House No. 6/110, Block-6 area measuring 464.56 square meter situate in Sector 2 & 3 T.H.A., Residential Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Ghaziabad Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. The house consists of three bed-rooms, drawing-room, dining store, lobby, garage, latrine, kitchen and one room over garage of which covered area is approximately 2000 square feet. On 14th May, 1998, the defendant executed an agreement to sell for consideration of Rs. 15,000,00/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). The said agreement was registered on 12th November, 1998. A sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and Fifty Thousand) was paid as earnest money out of which Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) were paid in advance and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) before the Sub-Registrar Ghaziabad on 14th May, 1998. The defendant was served with a legal notice dated 17th March, 1999 to come to the Office of Sub-Registrar on 2nd April, 1999 for the purposes of execution of sale-deed but he did not turn up. The plaintiff has always been willing and still willing to get the sale-deed executed of the said plot and to pay the balance amount.
(3.) The suit was contested on number of pleas. However, the execution of agreement of sale was not denied. The defendant came out with the case that the agreement is void for want of consideration and its registration is an act of forgery committed by officials of the Office of Sub-Registrar-III, Ghaziabad in collusion with the plaintiff. It was also set out that the defendant had entered into an earlier unregistered agreement with the plaintiffs brothers in respect of the same property but said agreement was also void ab initio for want of consideration by the plaintiff to the defendant. Certain other pleas were also set out in the written statement. He also filed counter claim.;