SEWA RAM Vs. ASHOK KUMAR (DECEASED) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Pankaj Miglani, Counsel for the appellant and Shri Siddharth Sah, Counsel for the respondents. By the present second appeal filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Roorki.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated a suit was field by the plaintiff -appellant against the defendant respondents for execution of the sale deed after payment of Rs. 4,750/ - alternatively the plaintiff is entitled to get the damages to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ - and the same may be awarded from the defendants apart from Rs. 500/ - which has been paid towards earnest money. According to the case of the plaintiff, on 21.6.1982 Saudagar Singh resident of village Sitapur has agreed to sale the property on a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - and a sum of Rs. 500/ - was paid as advance at the time of the agreement. It was a registered agreement and a sum of Rs. 9,500/ - was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed by 21.6.1983 and it was agreed that if the defendants fail to get the sale deed executed, the plaintiff will have a right to execute the sale deed through the Court. On various occasions the plaintiff has asked Shri Saudagar Sigh for execution of sale deed. After 4 -5 months of the agreement, Shri Saudagar Singh died leaving behind respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 as heirs. It has been stated that the heirs of late Shri Saudagar Singh are accountable for execution of sale deed. On 21.6.1983, the plaintiff served a notice to the defendants, which was received by the defendant No. 5 on 3.6.1983 whereas defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have denied to receive the same on 4.6.1983. The defendant No. 5 has executed a sale deed of half of his share after getting Rs. 4750/ - but the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has came to know that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have executed a sale deed of the property in dispute in their favour. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4, it has been stated that there is an enmity between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and, therefore, the plaintiff has field the suit. The suit is bared by section 168(a) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit.