(1.) THIS appeal preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005, passed by Additional District Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Roorkee, in Original Suit No. 126 of 1994, whereby said court has decreed the suit for specific performance of contract.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleading of the parties, as many as sixteen issues were framed in by the trial court. Parties filed their documentary evidence, and adduced the oral evidence. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the defendants had executed the alleged agreements of sale in favour of the plaintiff and he did receive the part of consideration, as pleaded by the plaintiff. Relying on the registered agreements and the receipts, the trial court found that plea of the defendant that he did not execute the agreement of sale of property A-B is incorrect. The trial court further found that the property had already been partitioned in 1966, and it had lost the character of the Hindu undivided family property. It also found that the finding of issue No. 6 relating to the non joinder of Naveen Kumar as party had already been decided by the trial court, as preliminary issue on 17.03.1997, in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for specific performance of contract vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2005, by the trial court.