- (1.) The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below whereby suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2004 for sale of land measuring 05 kanals 08 marlas, detailed in the head note of the plaint was decreed by the trial court and the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2010 passed by the trial court was affirmed in appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.5.2011.
(2.) As per case set up by the respondents-plaintiffs, Gurmit Singh (since deceased) represented by his legal representatives (Lrs) entered into an agreement to sell dated 16.1.2004 for sale of suit land detailed in the head note of the plaint for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs, received by the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement in the presence of scribe and marginal witnesses of the agreement. The plaintiffs always remained ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and approached the defendant a number of times to complete the sale transaction. A notice dated 23.7.2004 was issued calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed within 15 days of its receipt. The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Malaud on 16.8.2004 but the defendant failed to turn up to complete the transaction. The defendant filed the written statement and, in turn, denied the allegations that he executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs or received Rs. 1.5 lakhs towards sale consideration. It is averred that sons of Kartar Kaur (sister of father of the defendant) including the plaintiffs had been pressing the defendant for partition of the entire land with an intention to take possession of the land in occupation of the defendant. They approached him and demanded Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for not disturbing possession of the defendant and the defendant requested the plaintiffs for execution of some document with regard to payment received by them and accordingly, the plaintiffs forged and fabricated the alleged agreement in connivance with marginal witnesses and deed writer. All other material averments of the plaint have been denied with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement reiterating their stand set up in the plaint while controverting allegations in regard to any such demand by the plaintiffs and their brothers for partition of the joint land or receipt of Rs. 70,000/- with a promise not to disturb possession of the defendant or the agreement being the result of forgery and fabrication.;