BISHAMBER Vs. SUDHIR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat No.669/2017 Counsel appears for the caveator. Caveat accordingly stands discharged. RFA No. 648/2017 & C.M. No.26084/2017 This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.2 in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 20.5.2017 decreeing the suit for specific performance as against the appellant/defendant no.2.

(2.) It is noted that originally when the suit for specific performance was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.10.2006 with respect to 11 bighas and 13 biswas of the land situated in K.No.51/3(4-16), 51/4/1(3-2), 51,7/2(1-10), 51/8/1(1-16), 105/134 (0-19) in the Revenue Estate of Village Pandwala Kalan, Najafgarh, New Delhi there were a total of 8 defendants in the suit and the contesting defendants were defendant nos. 3 and 6. All the 8 defendants were the sellers under the subject agreement to sell dated 10.10.2006. All the defendants, except the defendant nos. 3 and 6, during the pendency of the suit executed the sale deeds of their shares in the suit land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Thus only the defendant nos. 3 and 6 remained who contested the suit and who thereafter became the defendant nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) I need not advert to the facts in detail inasmuch as the only issue which is argued before this Court and arise for decision is as to whether appellant was not entitled to enter into the agreement to sell because in the agreement to sell he stated that he had â ..›th share in the suit property whereas he only had 1/32 share in the suit property and this was on account of the fact that the appellant was not the sole owner of his â ..›th share and that his sons and grandsons had an equal right in the â ..›th share in the suit property on account of the suit property being inherited by the appellant as an ancestral property from his father.