- (1.) Present CM has been filed seeking condonation of 68 days delay in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 68 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. RSA No. 1852 of 2012 Plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby his suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga vide its judgment and decree dated 19.05.2009 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2011. Brief facts for proper adjudication of the case are that defendant No. 1 was recorded as owner of 7/16 share out of the total land mentioned in the plaint. Defendant No. 1 appointed Harbans Singh (her real brother) as her attorney vide registered power of attorney dated 11.5.1993, who in turn entered into agreement to sell dated 27.12.1994 for selling the entire share of defendant No. 1 with the plaintiff. The price fixed for this land was Rs. 2 lac and out of this, the plaintiff alleged that Rs. 1 lac was received as earnest money by Harbans Singh on behalf of defendant No. 1. The last date to execute the sale deed was fixed on or before 19.6.1998. However, said Harbans Singh died before the execution of the sale deed. It was further averred that the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 is living in a foreign country and in the month of April 1999 when he came to know that defendant No. 1 would be visiting India, he tried to contact her but she evaded meeting him. Ultimately the plaintiff alleged that he was able to contact defendant No. 1 on 15.4.1999, who assured him to get the sale deed executed in his favour. However, later on plaintiff alleged that he came to know that defendant No. 1 got executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2, who is the minor son of Darshan Singh (real brother of defendant No. 1). Hence the suit.
(2.) Upon notice, defendant No. 1 did not turn up and was proceeded against ex-parte.
(3.) Defendant No. 2 filed his written statement inter alia contending that the suit is barred by time. He raised the plea that he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration and without notice and the agreement in question dated 27.12.1994 is a forged and fabricated document. It was also contended that the price of the land is much more than what has been mentioned in the impugned agreement to sell. Thus he prayed for dismissal of the suit.;