Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants defendants submits that respondents-plaintiffs had instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1-Prem Chand in favour of plaintiff allegedly for total sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre against the payment of earnest money of Rs. 1,82,000/-. The stipulated date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 15.05.2005. On receipt of the aforementioned notice, defendant No.1-Vendor filed written statement and denied the execution of agreement to sell but admitted the fact that he had already entered into agreement to sell dated 04.06.2004 with defendant No. 3. The aforementioned fact has not been noticed by the Courts below. Courts have gone beyond the pleadings and relied only upon statement of the witnesses and as well as of Prem Chand. Pleadings would carry more weight than the statements in the cross-examination, as person may tell lies, but the documents would not. Once defendant No.1-Vendor admitted his signatures on the agreement to sell and the sale deed, it did not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to challenge the aforementioned sale deed and agreement to sell. The findings of the lower Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting the alternative relief to respondent(s) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, much less, perverse for without any evidence, formed the opinion that it was antedated.
(2.) No evidence has been come on record, much less, register to show who purchased stamp paper, thus, lower Appellate Court ought not to have exercised the discretion under Section 20 of the Act. In fact, Vendor defendant No.1 had executed agreement to sell dated 04.06.2004 against the payment of earnest money of Rs. 1,10,000/-. However, no target date for execution and registration was fixed but again on 20.10.2004 another amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid which was acknowledged by the Vendor and the target date 25.04.2005 was fixed, whereas, sale deed, aforementioned was to be executed on 20.04.2005. There is no complaint by the defendant No.1 regarding fraud or misrepresentation. Respondents plaintiffs despite execution of the sale deed, filed the suit after expiry of 10 months. He is stranger to the aforementioned purchase.
(3.) He further submits that after execution of the aforementioned sale deed, suit at the instance of the daughter of Vendor was filed by invoking the provision of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, however, same was also dismissed. All these factors reveals that defendant No.1 had acknowledged the execution of the agreement to sell dated 04.06.2004 which is prior in time. The trial Court rightly granted the alternative relief, whereas, lower Appellate Court has abdicated in granting the discretionary relief and thus, urges this Court for setting aside of the judgment and decree under challenge.;