RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. - (1.) ASSAILING the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below dismissing his suit for possession by specific performance, plaintiff has filed instant regular second appeal. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned lower appellate court, are that the plaintiff -appellant Shaminder Singh filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.8.2001, allegedly executed by defendant No.1 -Waryam Singh (since deceased). It was alleged that agreement to sell was executed between the parties for sale consideration of Rs.6,20,000/ - and defendant No.1 received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ - as earnest money from the plaintiff. Plaintiff -Shaminder Singh was son of defendant No.1 -Waryam Singh. Parties agreed for registration of the sale deed on or before 24.10.2001. Plaintiff further claimed that possession of the suit land was delivered to him at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Plaintiff further pleaded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 24.10.2001, plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub -Registrar, Kahnuwan, but the defendant did not turn up, thereby compelling him to file the present suit.
(2.) UPON notice, defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objection about the maintainability of suit on the ground of locus standi of the plaintiff. On merits, defendant admitted that deceased -Waryam Singh was owner of the suit land. However, the fact of execution of agreement to sell was denied alleging that the agreement to sell was forged, fabricated and result of impersonation. It was further alleged that defendants purchased land measuring 57 kanals 11 marlas from Waryam Singh, including the suit land, vide registered sale deed dated 6.3.2002 and they also took physical possession of the land. It was also alleged that relations of the plaintiff with Waryam Singh were strained. Waryam Singh -deceased used to reside with defendant No.6 - Balwant Singh. Plaintiff was disowned by his father -Waryam Singh on 9.11.2001 as the plaintiff had criminally assaulted his father. With these allegations and averments, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.1 specifically denied the execution of agreement to sell dated 22.8.2001 alleging that the agreement to sell was forged, fabricated and result of impersonation. He denied the receipt of earnest money from the plaintiff. On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues: - "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.8.2001? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land illegally and forcibly?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Relief"
(3.) BOTH the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence, so as to substantiate their respective stands taken. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence available on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove his case and the suit was accordingly dismissed, vide judgment dated 15.10.2009. Plaintiff filed his first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide impugned judgement dated 26.3.2013, thereby confirming the abovesaid judgment of the learned trial court. Hence this second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.;