VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) The defendant has remained unsuccessful before the two Courts below in a suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by the plaintiff. Although, the opening portion of the judgment of the learned trial Court shows that the suit was for declaration. It appears that the aforesaid fact was mentioned inadvertently inasmuch as the suit was indeed for possession by way of specific performance as is clear from the decree sheet appended with the appeal.
(2.) The plaintiff claimed the specific performance of the agreement dated October 3, 1996. It was claimed to have been executed by the defendant for the sale of the land for a total consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-. An earnest money of Rs.20,000/- was claimed to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and the sale deed was to be executed on or before June 15, 1997. Since the sale deed was not so executed, the plaintiff filed the suit and claimed that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit. He denied the agreement. He also denied the receipt of any earnest money. It was claimed that the agreement in question was false and forged and his signatures had been obtained on some blank papers, when the defendant had given his land on Theka to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff had been able to prove that the agreement in question had been duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on October 10, 1996 and that earnest money of Rs.20,000/- had been received by the defendant. It was also noticed that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal of the defendant failed before the learned first Appellate Court.;