9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n agreement to sell dated 07.06.2003 in respect of his share whereas defendant No.2 also agreed to sell land to the extent of her share from the total land measuring 68 bighas 3 biswas that comes out to be 10 biswas being 200/1363 share. The rate was fixed as Rs.62,500/- per bigha. An amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was taken as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement. The target date for execution of sale deed fixed as 09.12.2003. 3. The agreement was scribed by Rana Partap Singh as deed writer. Defendants No.1 and 2 failed to register and execute the sale deed on 09.12.2003 so the target date for execution of sale deed was extended up to 17.12.2003 and endorsement was made to that effect. On the target date, plaintiff attended the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the plaintiff always remained ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPP 3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD 5) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 6) Whether the suit of plaintiff is frivolous and is not maintainable? OPD 7) As to what would be the effect of mortgage of property by plaintiff and defendant No.3? OP Parties 8) Relief." 6. Both the parties led evidence. Trial Court considered issues No.1, 2 and 7 jointly and held execution of agreement to sell to be duly proved. Plea of fiduciary relationship as pleaded by the defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence as against convincing overwhelming evidence led by the plaintiff. Gurmail Singh DW-1 took a plea that thumb impressions of the defendants No.1 and 2 were taken upon the paper already prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with Ajit Singh. In cross examination the witness even did not admit his signature upon which the alleged agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was scribed. The stand advanced by DW-1 Gurmail Singh was held to be contradictory with the stand taken in the cross examination. Either the alleged agreement to sell Ex.P-1 was not the said document stated by the defendant in his cross examination or the earlier account submitted by the defendant was not correct. 9. Bare perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that the stamp papers were purchased b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
