HARI SINGH Vs. VIDYA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal, which is arising out of the concurrent judgements, rendered by both the Courts below, in a proceedings, which was arising out of Civil Suit No. 254 of 2012, Hari Singh Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi and others, whereby, the Suit for specific performance preferred by the appellant had been dismissed on 29.07.2016, so far it relates to the execution of the decree of specific performance for execution of sale deed, but however, it was partially allowed only limited to the extent for the refund of the money, i.e. the consideration, which exchanged hands and between the parties to the Suit. The Trial Court in its judgment dated 29.07.2016, recorded the following reasons :-

(2.) On the Suit being dismissed on 29th July, 2016, by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, the plaintiff/appellant, herein, being aggrieved against it, had preferred a Civil Appeal before the Appellate Court, being Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2016, Hari Singh Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi (since deceased) and others, which too, have been dismissed by the judgement of 24th February, 2020, of the first Appellate Court, which is under challenge in the present Second Appeal.

(3.) Before venturing to answer the argument as extended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, few admitted facts, which can be born from the record are that the property, lying in Khasra No. 183, which was having an area of 0.121 hectares, in fact, admittedly, it was a land, which stood allotted by the Land Management Committee, vide its resolution dated 18th October, 2001, in favour of the defendant No. 1 (the alleged proposed seller), who was the seller of the plaintiff/appellant, herein. The nature of the land, which was allotted by the Land Management Committee, was categorized as Shreni-2 land, which is non-transferable land and no agreement for sale could have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Apart from that, what is being reflected from the record is also that on 11th December, 2008, it is contended by plaintiff/appellant that a registered agreement for sale with an agreed sale consideration of Rs. 48,000/- was executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff/appellant, with a certain riders attached to it, as a condition precedent for executing the sale deed, it was to the effect that the defendant would get an appropriate permission from the competent Revenue Authorities for the purposes of executing the sale deed in pursuance to the agreement for sale dated 11th December, 2008. The execution of the sale deed was further subject to the condition that the sale would be executed only when the defendant get, herself recorded as sankramaniya bhumihdar. Subsequent thereto, admittedly by qualifying the terms of earlier agreement for sale dated 11.12.2008, an unregistered agreement for sale is said to have been executed on 12.12.2008, on an enhanced consideration of Rs.65,000/-.