RAKESH KUMAR GARG,J. - (1.) THIS is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for specific performance of the agreement regarding the suit property has been decreed and the defendant has been further restrained from alienating the suit land to any other person.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint is that on 21.1.1998, the defendant executed the agreement to sell Ex.P7 thereby agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- and she received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. The agreement was also got attested from the Executive Magistrate, Muktsar. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 20.7.1998 on receipt of the balance sale consideration. It is alleged that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the stipulated date, he appeared before the Sub Registrar, Muktsar along with the remaining sale price and other expenses for the execution of the sale deed but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff also sent a registered notice on 24.7.1998 to the defendant calling upon her to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement, but she did not execute the sale deed and committed breach of the terms of the agreement Ex.P7. It is further alleged that the defendant also started threatening to alienate the suit property to some other person in violation of the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff requested the defendant repeatedly to execute the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement and not to alienate the suit property, but to no effect. Hence the instant suit.
(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing her written statement, in which she raised the preliminary objections that the present suit has been filed only to harass her; the defendant never entered into any agreement to sell the suit property and the plaintiff wants to usurp the property of the defendant on the basis of the alleged forged agreement. On merits, the defendant denied the execution of the alleged agreement as well as the passing of any consideration there under. It was pleaded that the defendant had not purchased any stamp and the agreement is forged and fabricated document. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff and his father are carrying on the business of Karyana opposite to the Bus Stand, Muktsar and the defendant used to purchase Karyana goods from their shop. The daughter and mother-in-law of the defendant fell ill and due to that reason, she could not make the payment of the goods purchased on credit by her from the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that once Gurdev Singh, father of the plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant on some papers on the pretext that the same were to be submitted to the Income Tax Department. The defendant had made the payment to the father of the plaintiff of the price of the goods purchased by her on credit, but the father of the plaintiff also demanded interest from the defendant and when the defendant did not pay the interest, then father of the plaintiff told the defendant that he had got prepared a special power of attorney regarding the house in dispute from the defendant in favour of Pritpal Sharma, Advocate and they would get her house transferred in their names. They also sent a copy of the special power of attorney to the defendant and made a demand of more money, which she could not pay and due to that reason, the plaintiff fabricated the alleged agreement in connivance with the witnesses. While controverting all other allegations, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.;