RAKESH KUMAR GARG,J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 and additional agreement dated 30.12.1999 executed by the appellants in favour of the plaintiff regarding suit property has been decreed and the appellants have been restrained from alienating the suit property forcibly and illegally to any other person except the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint is that the disputed property is owned by the defendants. The defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of land measuring 19 biswas 4 biswasis vide agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 @ Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. At the time of the execution of the agreement, the respondents received Rs. 28,000/- in cash as earnest money from the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.12.1999. It was further stipulated that in case the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, then the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the sale deed registered through the process of law. The said date for the execution of the sale deed was extended from 30.12.1999 to 30.8.2000 vide additional agreement dated 30.12.1999. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff remained present before the Office of Sub Registrar, Dhuri, along with the remaining sale consideration and registration expenses on 30.8.2000 but the defendants did not turn up. He got marked his presence by submitting an affidavit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he is still ready to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff has requested the defendants number of times to perform their part of the contract by executing the sale deed and to deliver possession of the suit property and not to alienate the suit property to any other person, but in vain. Then, a notice was served upon the defendants on 1.9.2000 requiring them to reach before the office of Sub Registrar, Dhuri, but the defendants did not turn up. Hence, the present suit was filed. Upon notice, the defendants-appellants filed the written statement contesting the pleas taken by the plaintiff. They have taken the legal objections that the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus-standi to file the present suit, that the alleged agreements are the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The suit property is a residential house and the value of the property is more than Rs. 6,00,000/- whereas in the alleged agreement the value of the property has been shown to be of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha, therefore, the alleged agreements are not admissible. The alleged agreements are unregistered documents and are not properly stamped under the Indian Stamp Act. The present suit is not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that in fact the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.6.1999 on interest @ 2% per mensem and executed pronote and receipt in his favour. However, the plaintiff might have obtained the thumb impression of the defendants on the blank stamp papers. The defendants have never executed any agreement to sell the property which is the residential house of the plaintiff. The defendants did not execute additional agreement on 30.12.1999, rather they borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff against pronote and receipt. They have denied the other pleas of the plaintiff and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : "1. Whether the defendants had executed an agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 in favour of the plaintiff regarding the suit property ? OPP 2. Whether the defendants had also executed additional agreement dated 30.12.1999 ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitiled to decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 and additional agreement dated 30.12.1999 ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction ? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 7. If issue Nos.1 and 2 are proved, whether the alleged agreement are the result of fraud and misrepresentation ? OPD 8. Whether the alleged agreements are unregistered documents and are not properly stamped under Indian Stamp Act ? OPD 9. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD 10. Relief. ;