Rajiv Sahai Endlaw JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2004 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing suit No. 94 of 1997 filed by the appellant for specific performance of an Agreement dated 13.03.1995 with the respondent for sale of agricultural land falling in Khasra Nos. 1273, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1320, 1321 and 1322, total measuring 7.125 acres in village Punjab Khore, New Delhi. Notice of the appeal was issued and appeal thereafter admitted for hearing on 16.02.2005. Vide ad-interim order of the same date, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, title and possession of the said land. The Trial Court record was requisitioned. However the same on receipt was found to be incomplete and the record shows that the missing parts of the Trial Court record were reconstructed before the District Judge.
2. The counsels have been heard between yesterday and today.
3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint was:
(i) that the respondent/defendant had represented himself to be the owner of the aforesaid land by virtue of a Family Settlement dated 28.05.1993 between the legal heirs of Late Sh. Datar Singh, forming part of the consent Decree dated 25.08.1993 of this Court in CS(OS) No. 1495 of 1989 and CS(OS) No. 63 of 1989;
(ii) that the respondent further represented that he was in need of money and had agreed to sell his other lands also in the vicinity;
(iii) that the respondent had agreed to sell his aforesaid land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,98,750/- at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre;
(iv) that since the land continued to be recorded in the revenue records in the name of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, though under the Family Settlement aforesaid had fallen to the share of the respondent, the respondent also agreed to first have the land mutated in his name and thereafter obtain NOC from the Patwari/Tehsildar;
(v) that the terms and conditions agreed between the parties were reduced into a writing dated 13.03.1995 in which the respondent admitted receipt of advance/part sale consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 73,750/- payable at the time of registration of the Sale Deed and further admitted having delivered vacant peaceful physical possession of the said land to the appellant;
(vi) that the appellant after so coming into possession of the said land started tilling the same and approached the respondent repeatedly to enquire about the status of the permissions and sanctions required for execution of the Sale Deed and was always assured that the necessary steps were being taken;
(vii) that though the parties had agreed that the Sale Deed would be signed and executed on or before 31.07.1995 but the respondent towards the end of July, 1995 sought further 15 days time, again with the assurance to execute the Sale Deed thereafter; and,
(viii) however the respondent on 12.08.1995 purported to take over possession of the said land from the appellant; hence the appellant filed the suit from which this appeal arises on or about 16.08.1995 claiming besides the relief of specific performance, the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from forcibly dispossessing the appellant from the land.
4. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement pleading:
(i) that the writing dated 13.03.1995 forming the basis of the suit of the appellant was forged;
(ii) that the said land was in power and possession of the respondent, though the appellant had after the institution of the suit illegally trespassed on the said land;
(iii) that the land had been grossly under-valued and no specific performance could thus be ordered;
(iv) that no amount, let alone the amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-, was ever paid by the appellant to the respondent;
(v) that Family Settlement in CS(OS) No. 1495 of 1989........