- (1.) The suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.07.2003 filed by Kashmir Singh, respondent No.1-plaintiff, was decreed by the lower Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011. The appeal of the appellants did not succeed and was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2014. This regular second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and the relief of dismissal of the suit filed by respondent No.1, has been sought.
(2.) Briefly stated, the case of respondent No.1-plaintiff is that Sham Kumar, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 3, entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.07.2003 to sell his land measuring 17 marlas out of khata No. 64/65 khasra No.31//24/2 (6-15), 25/1 (0-12), 32//4/1 (5-7) situated at village Manj Kala HB No.265, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur for a total sale consideration of 2,05,000 and received 50,000 as earnest money. The date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 5.8.2003. However, said Sham Kumar received balance sale consideration of 1,55,000 on 28.07.2003 and agreed to execute the sale deed at any time. The possession of the suit land was delivered to respondent No.1-plaintiff. After getting the possession, respondent No.1 did the earth filling in the plot and raised foundation and base-wall at the spot. On 28.07.2003 Sham Kumar had also executed a general power of attorney of the same property in favour of respondent No.1 in the office of Sub Registrar, Mukerian after receiving full and final consideration as per the agreement but he could not execute the sale deed due to his death on 06.11.2003. The appellants and other legal heirs of deceased Sham Kumar were served notice dated 22.12.2004 to get the sale deed executed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The appellants and other legal heirs of Sham Kumar gave reply of the legal notice on 19.01.2005 denying the execution of agreement dated 25.07.2003, power of attorney dated 28.07.2003 and delivery of possession of disputed site to plaintiffs by Sham Kumar.
(3.) In the written statement, the appellants and other legal heirs of deceased Sham Kumar contested the claim of respondent No.1-plaintiff with the plea that the agreement dated 25.07.2003 endorsement on it and the general power of attorney dated 28.07.2003 were forged and fabricated documents. It was also denied that the possession of the suit land was delivered to respondent No.1.;