RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 13.10.2011 whereby suit for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question was decreed by the trial Court. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2013 of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondents filed the instant suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.4.2005 with regard to suit land measuring 57 kanals 11 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint. It was averred on behalf of the plaintiff -respondents that defendant -appellants who were the owners in possession of the suit land, agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs on 13.4.2005 at the rate of Rs. 2,98,000/ - per killa for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,43,737/ - and received a sum of Rs.4,50,000/ - as earnest money and executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs on the said date. Last date for executing the sale deed was on or before 28th February, 2006. It is the further case of the plaintiff -respondents that they remained ready and willing but the appellants failed to comply with the provisions of the terms and conditions of the agreement on the stipulated date. The plaintiff -respondents approached the appellants and asked them to get the sale deed executed and went to the office of Sub Registrar, Gidderbaha and waited there throughout the day but the appellants failed to turn up. The respondents got their presence marked by way of swearing an affidavit. Hence the suit. Upon notice, appellants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. The execution of agreement to sell in question and receipt of earnest money was denied. It was stated that the suit property was joint Hindu family property of the appellants and other family members. There was no necessity to sell the suit property. It is the further case of the appellants that actually they used to sell their crops through the commission agents at Gidderbaha and as per tendency prevalent amongst them, signatures and thumb impressions of the appellants were obtained by their commission agent. The appellants had a dispute of settlement of accounts with the commission agent, which was settled with the intervention of the respectables, but it appears that the respondents who are merely figure head in the case in hand and the suit has been got filed through them by the commission agent of the appellants. Rest of the paras of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the defendants entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs on 13.4.2005 for a consideration of Rs.2,98,000/ - per killa? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs were/are still ready and willing to perform their part of contract? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession by way of specific performance by the agreement to sell dated 13.4.2005? OPP 4. Whether in the alternative the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.9,00,000/ - from the defendants? 5. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the agreement to sell is forged and fabricated document? OPD 6. Relief. ;