- (1.) Defendant/appellant has filed the instant second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below whereby suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the defendant/appellant was dismissed by the appellate court while affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial court.
(2.) Facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance alleging therein that the defendant/appellant entered into an agreement to sell dated 5.12.2001 for the sale of house constructed on 150 square yards, in the presence of Karam Singh and Savinder Singh, witnesses as well as parents of the defendant, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1.50 lacs out of which defendant received a sum of Rs.1 lac as earnest money in the presence of aforesaid persons. The said agreement to sell was allegedly signed by Karam Singh,Savinder Singh witnesses and Devi Dayal father of the defendant and thumb marked by mother of the defendant. The target date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 5.12.2003, however, on 4.12.2003, defendant extended the date of sale deed from 5.12.2003 to 5.12.2004 by scribing a writing on the back of said agreement which was signed by defendant/his father and thumb marked by the mother of the defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, but the defendant failed to perform his part of the agreement. Since 5.12.2004 was a Sunday, plaintiff visited the office of Sub Registrar on 6.12.2004 alongwith balance sale consideration but defendant did not turn up, upon which plaintiff got his presence marked with the office of Sub Registrar,Patiala by way of an affidavit. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and hence the suit.
(3.) Upon notice, defendant contested the suit by filing written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits it was alleged that the alleged agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document. The plaintiff owned a Combine and defendant worked as a Foreman on the said combine from 1999 to November 2004 and on the pretext of giving him employment, the plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant/his father and thumb impression of his mother on some blank papers/stamp papers. It was alleged that no agreement, as alleged was ever executed by the defendant nor he was owner of the house which was subject matter of the suit.;