Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE defendant is before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell, was decreed.
(2.) IN the case in hand, the appellant -defendant entered into an agreement to sell for land measuring 20 kanals situated in village Nadodi, Tehsil and District Fatehabad @ Rs. 3,60,000/ - per acre, on 5.11.2007. Earnest money of Rs. 5,80,000/ - was paid. The last date for registration of sale -deed was 6.1.2008. The vendee paid another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - to the appellant on 7.1.2008. Thereafter, the last date for registration of sale -deed was extended upto 6.5.2008. As the appellant failed to get the sale -deed registered, the respondent -plaintiff filed the suit, which was decreed by the trial court. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court was upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two fold submissions namely that agreement to sell was a result of fraud and further that the respondent -plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the sale -deed registered. In the absence thereof, the suit for specific performance could not have been decreed even if the agreement to sell was proved. The only relief to which the respondent -plaintiff was entitled to, is the refund of earnest money.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The findings of fact have been recorded by both the courts below on correct appreciation of evidence led by the parties. To prove the execution of agreement to sell dated 5.11.2007 (Ex. P2), and extension granted on 7.1.2008 (Ex. P3), the plaintiff besides examining himself also produced Ram Kumar, the attesting witness. He specifically stated that the agreement was executed in his presence. The same was read over to the appellant, who after admitting the same to be correct appended his signatures thereon.;