JASWANT SINGH,J. - (1.) CM No.5453-C/2012 has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 80 days delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit of the appellant. For the reasons stated in the application, which are just and sufficient, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.5454-C/2012 is allowed and permission is granted to make good the deficiency in payment of Court fee. CM No.5455-C/2012 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code for stay of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Samrala. RSA No.1971/2012. Defendant no.1/appellant/vendor is in second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below whereby the suit filed by plaintiff Karam Chand(respondent no.1) for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3.12.2002 was decreed by the trial court and affirmed in appeal.
(2.) Facts necessary for adjudication of the present second appeal are that respondent no.1-Karam Chand (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on 9.8.2003 with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was pleaded that defendant vendor had executed an agreement to sell dated 3.12.2002 regarding sale of land in his favour measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas i.e. ?rd share out of the suit land fully described in the head note of the plaint, on payment of a total sale consideration of L 80,000/-. Earnest money of L 40,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 3.12.2002. The target date for execution of the sale deed was on or before 30.6.2003. It was further averred that on 25.6.2003, the time for execution and registration of the sale deed was extended from 30.6.2003 to 29.12.2003 and another amount of L 20,000/- was paid to defendant no.1. The execution of the agreement to sell dated 3.12.2002 and the payment of earnest money of L 40,000/- on that date and further the extension of the target date made on 25.6.2003 with further payment of L 20,000/- was made in the presence of the witnesses. It was further stated that the plaintiff was throughout ready and willing to perform his part of the contract whereas the defendant illegally executed a sale deed dated 16.7.2003 in favour of his brother-defendant no.2, Sukhwinder Singh, which resulted in plaintiff filing the instant suit on 9.8.2003.
(3.) Upon notice, defendant no.1/appellant (vendor) filed his written statement denying the execution of the agreement to sell dated 3.12.20021 and receipt of any amount from the plaintiff. It was further asserted that the agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated document without consideration. Defendant no.2 claimed himself to be bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice from Rajinder Singh of the suit land. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed. The material issue no.1 for ready reference is as under:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of specific performance of contract dated 3.12.2002? OPP;