The Trial Court, vide judgment decree dated 12.08.2003 decreed the respondents suit.
2039 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge Fast Track Court , Amritsar in C.A. No.
The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
5 lakhs, the respondent has paid Rs.4 lakhs in cash at the time of execution of agreement 02.07.1995 to the respondent and has agreed to pay the balanced amount to the appellant at the time of registration of the sale deed.
Parties adduced evidence.
95 of 2006.
In other words, all the three Courts, on appreciating the evidence in their respective jurisdiction and discretion, held that the defense taken by the appellant defendant was number proved.
The first appellate Judge, vide his judgment dated 21.03.2007, affirmed all the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appellants appeal.
FTC/10 of 2003/2006.
The plaint, inter alia, companytained necessary averments as required under Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for claiming specific performance of the agreement in question.
In substance, this was the defense taken by the appellant while opposing the suit.
The appellant while denying the averments mainly averred that, i the agreement in question is a forged document ii he had only signed on blank paper on request from the respondent iii he never intended to sell the land to the respondent iv his signature was taken by the respondent on blank paper for being used in one pending litigation in which both were parties and v since the appellant at that time was staying away from the respondent for pursuing his studies, he sent the blank paper, which was companyverted by the respondent in the form of an agreement in question without his knowledge.
It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed on or before 13.12.1995.
The appellant and the respondent are real brothers.
The appellant pursued the matter to the High Court in Second Appeal.
Heard Mr. V.K. Jhanji, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, learned companynsel for the respondent.
Since the appellant did number execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent in terms of the agreement, the respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 02.07.1995 in relation to the suit land.
The appellant defendant filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar being C.A. No.
It was held that, i the agreement in question is real and genuine ii it bears the signature of appellant iii the appellant did number execute the sale deed in terms of agreement iv the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement v he also performed his part and vi the appellant breached the agreement and did number execute the sale deed in terms of agreement.
The respondent is elder to the appellant.
The appellant, felt aggrieved of the judgment of the High Court, preferred this appeal by way of special leave to this Court.
The agreement, inter alia, recited that out of Rs.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in the appeal.
The appellant defendant is the companysharer of the land to the extent of 55/118, which companyes to 84 Kanals, in the joint Khata of total land measuring 177 kanals 10 Marlas situated in Village Vachhoa, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.
The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 30.07.2007, dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the judgment decree of the first Appellate Court.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and final order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.
The appellant entered into an agreement on 02.07.1995 with the respondent plaintiff whereby he agreed to sell his share of 55/118 of the entire land to the respondent for a total sale companysideration of Rs.5 lakhs.
We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.07.29 135403 IST Reason FTC/10 of 2003/2006 by which the appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed with companyts affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Senior Division , Ajnala in Civil Suit No.
