- (1.) C. M. No. 2988-C of 2012: Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal: 1. Defendants No. 1 and 2, having been unsuccessful in both the courts below, have filed this second appeal. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff Balwinder Singh filed suit against appellants and against respondent No. 2 Jetha Nand as defendant No. 3. Plaintiff's case is that defendants No. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property including four shops to plaintiff and defendant No. 3 for Rs. 2,00,000/- and received Rs. 25,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and executed agreement dated 12.04.2002, Defendant No. 3 was to pay another amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards earnest money up to 10.05.2002 and it was paid accordingly. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 12.08.2002 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 3 or in favour of anybody else at their instance. Meanwhile, on 13.05.2002, defendant No. 3 relinquished his rights under the agreement in favour of plaintiff by receiving Rs. 45,000/- from him i. e. Rs. 25,000/- paid by defendant No. 3 as earnest money and Rs. 20,000/- as additional amount. Agreement dated 13.06.2002 in this regard was executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff attended the office of Sub Registrar on 12.08.2002 to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but defendants No. 1 and 2 did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement, whereas the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit property by specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative, sought recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest.
(2.) Defendant No. 3, in his written statement, admitted the claim of the plaintiff.
(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit and pleaded the disputed shops are in possession of tenants, who have not been impleaded as party to the suit, and therefore, relief of possession cannot be granted. Defendants No. 1 and 2 broadly denied the plaint averments. They denied having entered into agreement to sell the suit property to plaintiff and defendant No. 3. It was pleaded that plaintiff and defendant No. 3 had approached husbands of defendants No. 1 and 2 for purchasing the disputed shops only and not the vacant area lying behind the shops. Later on, plaintiff and defendant No. 3 came to defendants No. 1 and 2 at their house in the absence of their husbands and told that deal had been struck with their husbands and accordingly, defendants No. 1 and 2 were made to sign blank stamp papers and other papers. Later on, draft agreement was shown to husband of defendant No. 2, who, however, did not approve the draft agreement as proper sale consideration was not mentioned and vacant space had also been included and the draft agreement was not in consonance with the agreed terms and conditions. Plaintiff and defendant No. 3 took back the draft agreement to prepare amended draft on its basis. However, they did not turn up later on and fabricated the impugned agreement and receipt Various other pleas were also raised.;