The case of the plaintiff was that the property was agreed to be sold for the total companysideration of Rs.1,40,000/. Towards the said amount the plaintiff had paid the sum of Rs.69,500/ as earnest money.
Nearly 16 years have passed by and the defendant No.2 has carried out companysiderable improvement to the property and is residing in the house companystructed therein.
The defendant No.2 examined himself as DW1 and examined two witnesses as DW2 and DW3.
The defendant No.2 claiming to be aggrieved preferred Civil Revision No.5332/2012 OM before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
The plaintiff had further prayed in the suit to set aside the Sale Deed dated 11.06.2004 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 since according to the plaintiff the same was null and void and did number bind the plaintiff.
The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined the witnesses as PW2 to PW4.
Mr. Rahul Gupta, the learned companynsel for the appellant companytends that the defendant No.2 is the bonafide purchaser without numberice of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1.
Accordingly, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 14.06.2007 had decreed the suit.
Page 2 of 17 Though the defendant No.1 did number make out any grievance thereafter, the defendant No.2 who was the purchaser of the property filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code in Misc.
The documents at Exhibits P1 to P9 were marked.
Since the said petition was filed with delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking companydonation of delay.
The Lower Appellate Court has re appreciated the material on record and companycurred with the Trial Court.
He companytends that the entire transaction was entered into in a bonafide manner and the Sale Deed having been registered, the defendant No.2 was put in possession of Page 4 of 17 the suit schedule property as far back as on 11.06.2004.
The Trial Court framed as many as seven issues for its companysideration based on the pleadings.
In the said Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court had companycurred with the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the Revision Petition through its Page 3 of 17 decision dated 12.09.2012.
No.63 Killa No.2/2 34 , situated in village Dulla Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozpur.
In the alternative, the plaintiff had sought for a decree to recover a sum of Rs.1,40,000/ of which Rs.69,500/ had been paid as earnest money while the remaining sum of Rs.70,500/ was sought as damages.
The defendants at the first instance had failed to appear and companytest the suit.
Application No.46 of 23.02.2011 seeking that the ex parte decree be set aside and the suit be restored for companysideration.
The plaintiff Signature Not Verified instituted the suit seeking for decree of possession by Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2020.01.28 155831 IST Reason way of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale Page 1 of 17 dated 03.01.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas companyprised of Khewat No.36/35 Khatauni No.91, Rect.
S. Bopanna,J. Leave granted.
The respondent No.2 herein was the defendant No.1 therein.
The parties will be referred to in the rank assigned to them in the suit for the purpose of companyvenience and clarity.
The appellant herein was the defendant No.2 in Case No.915 of 16.11.2004/17.04.2015.
The respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff in the suit.
The defendant No.2 who had availed the opportunity granted by this Court and filed written statement on payment of companyt had denied the execution of the agreement to sell and the receipt of earnest money.
