AMI CHAND Vs. SUBHADRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 12.10.1992 passed by Sri Pooran Singh. Special Judge/Additional District Judge. Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 249 of 1975.

(2.) THE fact giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1, Smt. Subhadra Devi was owner of the disputed plot No. 23, measuring 2 bigha 5 biswas situated in the villageSalampur, Pargana Shikarpur, district Bulandshahr. She agreed to sell the said plot in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 24,000. A sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid in advance and registered agreement to sale was executed on 23.8.1973. It was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed by 30.9.1973, on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 19,000. That on 8.9.1973, the respondent No. 1 came to Bulandshahr treasury and purchased the stamp worth Rs. 1,080 for the execution of the sale deed and agreed to execute the sale deed within five -seven days. That the sale deed was not executed and, therefore, registered notice was given on 13.9,1973 which was served on 15.9.1973. It is further alleged that the appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and therefore, the suit was filed.'

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed one written statement and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed separate written statement. The common ground taken by them is that the respondent No. 1 never executed any agreement to sale in favour of the appellant ; that prior to the alleged agreement the respondent No. 1 agree to sale the disputed land to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 8.8.1973 for consideration of Rs. 25,500 and executed the agreement to sale and received Rs. 2,000 as earnest money ; that they further paid a sum of Rs. 8.000 to the respondent No. 1 on 18.8.1973. The sale deed was got executed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from respondent No. 1 on 28.11.1973. It was further pleaded bythe respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that they are bona fide purchasers for value and that the plaintiff got the agreement executed in his favour by defrauding the respondent No. 1.