SHAILENDRA SINGH @ CHHINDA Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Second Appeal, which has been preferred by the defendants/appellants, being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 4th May, 2019, as passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2011, Shailendra Singh and others Vs. Ravi Kumar and as a consequence thereto, the judgment and decree dated 25th May, 2011, as passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Suit No. 183 of 1997, Ravi Kumar Vs. Palvendra Singh and others, has been affirmed. Resultant thereto, as a consequence of the judgment and decreeing of the Suit, the defendant/appellant has been directed to vacate the premises, i.e. shop in dispute, which as per his own case, which he contends that it was agreed to be sold to him by virtue of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 15th May, 1992, which is said to have been executed in his favour by the predecessors of the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) Whereas, on the other hand, the case of the plaintiff/respondent before the Court below was that the defendant/appellant was inducted as a tenant and thus, since despite of the notice issued to him terminating the tenancy by a notice, he has not vacated the disputed premises, in question, hence, the necessity arose for plaintiff/respondent for filing of the Suit for the grant of decree of following nature. The nature of relief as sought for by the plaintiff/appellant in the Suit No. 183 of 1997, Ravi Kumar Vs. Palvinder Singh and others was to the following effect :- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMIITED]...

(3.) Brief fact, which has emerged for consideration before the Court is that the right, which was claimed by the defendant/appellant over the shop, in question, was on the premise that since there was an unregistered agreement for sale dated 15th May, 1992, executed in his favour and he has been specifically placed reliance on the agreement for sale, which was placed on record before this Court as to be the foundation based on which, he submits that on account of part performance of the agreement for sale, since he has been placed in possession, it would be rendering the suit preferred by the plaintiff/respondent as to be not tenable in view of the provisions contained under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.