SHARDA RANI CHHABADA Vs. RAJJAN PRASAD (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.10/1991 by the District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the judgment and decree for specific performance has been passed in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1. The present appeal is by the purchasers of the suit property.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that, a suit was filed by Rajjan Prasad, S/o. Shambhu Dayal (since deceased) that on 04.03.1991 an agreement was executed in between Rajjan Prasad (since deceased) and Devi Prasad Tiwari (since deceased) whereby Devi Prasad Tiwari agreed to sell half part of the superstructure comprised Plot No.87 recorded at Sheet No.26 admeasuring half of 2485 sq.ft. for a sale consideration of Rs.2 Lakhs as Rajjan Prasad was in occupation of the suit house as tenant. Out of the total sale consideration, Rs.20,000/- was paid as an advance as earnest money and it was agreed that till 15.04.1991 sale deed would be executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that before the date of sale a notice was received by plaintiff on 13.03.1991 and allegations were clamped that the son of the then plaintiff Rajjan Prasad has obtained signature on the papers by fraud and further it was pleaded that thereafter the defendant No.1, the seller, contacted for execution of the sale deed and it was stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the sale deed by payment of remaining amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.2 namely Sharda Rani Chhabda and defendant No.3 Anoop Kumar Chhabda have purchased the suit property. It was further contended that the agreement dated 04.03.1991 was within the knowledge of the subsequent purchasers and they were not the bonafide purchasers of the said suit property. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was further ready and willing to perform his part of contract, therefore, specific performance of decree was prayed for.

(3.) The defendant No.1, Devi Prasad Tiwari, the original owner/ seller of the property filed his written statement and stated that he never received the notice sent by the plaintiff. It was stated that neither any agreement nor any sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- advance was paid. It was stated that another sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant No.2 and 3 on 19.03.1991, which was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was stated that despite knowing those facts, the plaintiff being the tenant wanted to remain in the suit premises, therefore, such suit was filed. Further the defendant pleaded the plaintiff never wanted to purchase the suit property from the seller. Further it was pleaded that on 10.12.1989 another part of the land of the suit property wherein one Kamal Mohammad was a tenant, one Omprakash Juneja entered into an agreement for purchase of the said part of the land and accordingly on 05.05.1990 sale deed was executed in part of that suit property. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had also entered into an agreement dated 18.12.1989 with Omprakash Juneja in respect of the part held by the plaintiff and part of sale consideration Rs.25,000/- was paid. Further the subsequent agreement was executed on 05.05.1990 and thereafter on 17.01.1991 sale consideration was further paid and ultimately the sale was executed in favour of Smt. Sharda Rani Chhabda and Anoop Kumar Chhabda at the behest of Omprakash Juneja with whom the seller entered into the agreement. The sale deed was further stated to have been executed on 19.03.1991.