RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) THE defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.07.2006 has been decreed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the defendant, who is joint owner in possession of the land measuring 18 Kanals 16 Marlas, agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff on 24.07.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/ - per acre after executing the agreement to sell and received Rs. 7,85,000/ - as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 01.11.2006. The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Dasuya, on the target date with balance sale consideration and other expenses but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed. He got his presence marked before the Sub Registrar by getting his affidavit attested. Even a legal notice was served upon the defendant on 20.11.2006 asking the defendant to come present on 26.12.2006 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant did not turn up. Hence, the suit was filed. The defendant denied the agreement to sell and the receipt of earnest money. It was alleged that the plaintiff has forged the agreement in connivance with Jaswant Singh S/o Sewa Singh, resident of village Chak Bammu and Surjit Kaur wife of Balkar Singh, resident of Jalalpur, P.S. Tanda. It was also alleged that the land in dispute is abutting the main road which is not less than Rs.20,00,000/ - per acre. The defendant alleged that he approached Bharat Vidhu Travel Agent for sending his family member abroad and also disclosed his name to Surjit Kaur who approached him through Jaswant Singh S/o Sewa Singh, who told the name of the agent engaged by him. The said agent disappeared with money received from the defendant as well as from Surjit Kaur. Upon that, Surjit Kaur made number of complaints to DSP, Dasuya against the defendant, who was summoned to appear in Police Station in the year 2006 where he was forcibly made to sign and thumb mark some blank stamp papers which have been forged, fabricated and misused by Surjit Kaur, in connivance with Jaswant Singh, Surat Singh Lambardar and Pardeep Kumar Sharma, Deed Writer, into the agreement to sell.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication reiterating his stand and denied the averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court: - ''1. Whether the defendant executed agreement to sell dated 24.07.2006 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for joint possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.07.2006? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether agreement dated 24.07.2006 is forged and fabricated document as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the alleged agreement to sell is sham document and is the result of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation and without consideration? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is false and vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff and is liable to be dismissed? OPD. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with special costs as provided under section 35 -A CPC? OPD. 10. Relief. '' ;