- (1.) The appellant(s)-defendant Nos.1 & 2 are aggrieved of the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby the suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.09.2000 executed by alleged attorney-holder Gulab Singh, whose attorney cancelled on 03.10.2000, has been decreed while exercising the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the 1963 Act').
(2.) Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s)-defendant(s) submits that the appellant(s)-defendant(s) had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 06.09.2000 in favour of their cousin Gulab Singh, who breached the trust and entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.09.2000 with one Om Parkash. Before the aforementioned act could fructify into sale deed, GPA was cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 03.10.2000, yet the agent exceeded the jurisdiction and executed a sale deed dated 05.10.2000. The aforementioned act of the agent was challenged by filing the suit which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005. The appellant(s)-defendant(s) was flabbergasted, upon receiving upon summons of the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.09.2000 purportedly by the power of attorney holder in favour of the respondent(s)-plaintiff(s)-Fateh Singh, vide which, Gulab Singh alleged to have received a sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/- and the stipulated date of registration and execution of the sale deed was kept after two years.
(3.) He further submits that appellants-defendants have not examined the stamp vendor nor the register of the scribe to prove that actually agreement to sell was executed on 18.09.2000 or was antedated. If at all it was so, Gulab Singh was defendant in the earlier round of litigation could have disclosed of having entered into agreement to sell in question, therefore, it was an apparent collusion of respondent(s)-plaintiff(s)-Fateh Singh with Gulab Singh. The respondent(s)-plaintiff(s) also summoned Gulab Singh as a witness, but he did not come present, in fact he was afraid that truth may not surface. All these factors have not been taken into consideration by both the Courts below, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgment and decree under challenge.;