- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by a dis-satisfied plaintiff as his suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 31.12.2003 regarding land measuring 3 kanals 10 marlas out of land measuring 62 kanals 15 marlas situated in the estate of village Bhoj Raj, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was dismissed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant-respondent had entered into an agreement of sale dated 31.12.2003 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 3,20,000 per killa and had received Rs. 54,500 as earnest money at the time of execution of sale. The sale deed had to be executed and registered on 30.12.2004 after receiving the remaining amount of sale consideration. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had contacted the defendant two days prior to 30.12.2004 and requested him to reach at Tehsil compound Kalanaur to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also remained present at the office of the Sub Registrar, Kalanaur but the defendant did not turn up and the plaintiff got his presence marked at 5.00 p.m. through an affidavit. Thereafter also, the plaintiff asked the defendant to execute the Sale Deed but the defendant had been putting off the matter. Thereafter, two legal notices dated 19.02.2005 and 09.04.2005 were served upon the defendant. It is in such circumstances, the present suit was filed.
(3.) The defence of the defendant was that the plaintiff is running a shop of commission agent in his village Bangowani and the defendant used to sell his agricultural produce through the plaintiff and sometimes advance was taken by the defendant from the plaintiff which used to be adjusted at the time of harvest of crop. The plaintiff was claiming Rs. 3,500 from the defendant and, therefore, the defendant started selling the produce through other commission agents as the plaintiff was playing fraud with him and the plaintiff was an influential person having political back. It was further alleged that Sukhdev Singh, Head Constable who was also enjoying political patronage was then posted as Incharge of Police Picket Kot Santokh Raj, which is near the villages of plaintiff and the defendant and was very close to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and Sukhdev Singh accordingly connived with each other, as a result of which, the defendant was abducted from his house at the instance of the plaintiff by the said Head Constable and other police officials and he was taken to the police Picket Kot Santokh Raj where he was beaten by the Head Constable and persons from his village Bhojraj came to save him. However, the plaintiff alongwith the Head Constable arranged a scribe and stamp vender and obtained the signatures of defendant on the papers forcibly under the threat of liquidation. Accordingly, it was alleged that the agreement of sale had been fabricated by the plaintiff in connivance with the police officials and the same is a result of coercion and undue influence having no legal sanctity. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had got a similar document prepared from one Baldev Singh son of Karnail Singh, who was also severely beaten by the said Head Constable. Both Baldev Singh and defendant had approached the SSP, Batala and after inquiry, SSP Batala ordered to register a case against Head Constable Sukhdev Singh under Sections 506/343/341/420 IPC. Sukhdev Singh also remained in judicial lock-up for several days. The signatures of the alleged attesting witness Jaswant Singh was also obtained by the Head Constable by way of coercion and Jaswant Singh has given an affidavit dated 19.08.2004 supporting the case of the defendant. The other attesting witness was a relative of the plaintiff. Thus, it was pleaded that the agreement of sale was not enforceable. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit for Joint possession as owner by means of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 31.12.2003, prayer for OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative suit for recovery as prayed for OPP 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for OPP;