MNOHAR LAL Vs. RAMNIHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant/plantiff has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit for specific performance of contract of sale, dated 24-8-99 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 17-A/96.

(2.) As per case of the pLalntiff/appellant, respondent No. 1 - owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 93/10, 93/5, 93/15 and 93/16 total area 3.14 acres situate at Village Pandhi, Patwari Halka No. 27, entered into agreement of sale with the appellant herein on 2-5-1996 for a consideration of Rs. 1,26,000/- and after receiving Rs. 5,000/- as advance he executed agreement Ex. P.l before two witnesses and possession was also handed over by respondent No. 1 to the appellant/pLalntiff. However, on 15-5-1996 respondent No. 2 succeeded in getting execution of sale deed in his favour by respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have also prepared agreement dated 11-4-1996 i.e. Ex. D-1 in deceitful manner. During the subsistence of agreement of sale between respondent No. 1 & the appellant, respondent No. 1 was not competent to sell the property to respondent No. 2 and no title has been passed in favour of respondent No. 2. On 23-9-1996 respondents No. 1 & 2 have been served with notice Ex. P-3 which has been returned vide Exs. P-7 to P-9 being refused by the respondents. On the basis of agreement of sale Ex. P-l, suit for specific performance of contract was filed on behalf of the appellant with prayer for execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant by both the respondents.

(3.) By filing separate written statement, respondent No. 1 has admitted signature on Ex. P-l but has denied execution of any agreement i.e. agreement of sale relating to any of his lands. He has pleaded that the appellant is money lender, he has taken loan of Rs. 3,000/- from the appellant and signed on one blank paper on revenue ticket. On 11-4-1996 he entered into agreement of sale of his land to respondent No. 2 and received Rs. 10,000/ -, thereafter, he contacted the appellant and tried to return Rs. 3,000/- but the appellant refused to receive the same and requested for possession of land. He has specifically denied execution of any agreement of sale in favour of the appellant and has admitted that he has executed agreement of sale in favour of respondent No. 2 vide Ex. D-l and has also sold the land to respondent No. 2 on 15-5-1996 by executing sale deed.