HAKIM SINGH Vs. RAM SANEHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both of these appeals arise out of common Judgment and decree, dated 20.11.1997 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge. Agra. These appeals Involve the same questions of facts and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The respondents of Appeal No. 279 of 1998 (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, which was Suit No. 210 of 1978. Their case is that on 20.8.1977. the appellant of Appeal No. 279 of 1998 Hakim Singh (hereinafter called as appellant), executed an agreement to sell the agricultural land of Khasra Plot No. 129, area 10 Bighas, 4 Biswas and three Biswansis situated in village Alampur Jarkhi, district Firozabad for Rs. 1,16,000. Rs. 5,000 were paid advance before the execution of the agreement deed and Rs. 10,000 were paid to the appellants at the time of the registration. The agreement was that the sale deed shall be got executed by 30.6.1978 after obtaining necessary permission. It is further alleged that possession of the land was also transferred to the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the appellant did not executed the sale deed. That the plaintiffs also served notices, dated 29.4.1978 and 19.6.1978 by registered post to execute the sale deed on 8.5.1978 and 28.6.1978 respectively. The plaintiffs went to Sub-Registrar's office to get the sale deed executed but the appellant did not appear to execute the sale-deed, hence the suit was filed. The suit was contested by the appellant and he also filed Suit No. 210 of 1978 for cancellation of the above agreement deed. The case taken in the W. S. of the suit of the plaintiffs and the Suit No, 210 of 1978 is that the appellant had to pay a loan of the Bank and of Het Singh and was in need of money. That he approached plaintiffs for advancing the money and they agreed to pay Rs. 10,000 as loan on interest @ 15% per annum on the condition that the land shall be mortgaged. That the appellant agreed for the same. That, however, by fraud and in collusion with the witnesses, the agreement for sale was got executed in place of mortgage deed. That the son of the appellant also colluded with the plaintiffs. That the agreement has been obtained by fraud and cannot be enforced. Therefore, in Suit No. 210 of 1978 filed by Hakim Singh, it was requested that the alleged agreement be cancelled.

(3.) The trial court consolidated both the suits and decreed the suit of the present appellants No. 210 of 1978 and cancelled the agreement, dated 20.8.1977. He also dismissed the suit for the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract for sale. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiffs filed two Appeal Nos. 164 of 1995 and 9 of 1991 against the judgment in both the suits. The first appellate court has reversed both the judgments and decreed the suit for specific performance of contract for sale on payment of balance amount of the said consideration and has dismissed the suit with costs for cancellation of the agreement for sale. Therefore, the appellant has come in appeals before this Court.