GANGA SINGH Vs. JAMUNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance alleging that defendant had executed an agreement to sell dated 18.5.1974 for the land described at foot of the plaint for total consideration of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and that sum of Rs. 2500/- was paid as advance. The plaintiff contended that it was agreed in the agreement dated 18.5.1974 that remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 2500/- and expenditure towards registry would be paid within a period of two years and sale deed would be executed and registered. The plaintiff contended that he arranged Rs. 2500/- and the expenditure towards registry and requested the defendant Ist set to execute sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 18.5.1974 but he did not respond. As such registered notice dated 22.5.1975 was sent stating therein that he would be present in the office of registrar on 28.5.1975. The defendant Ist set was asked to be present in the office of sub-registrar to execute the sale deed. The defendant Ist set did not turn up before the sub- registrar for execution of sale deed rather gave reply to the notice that land in question had been sold in favour of defendant IInd set and no agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiff was entered into. In the written statement filed by the defendant Ist set, defendant no.1 denied execution of agreement and further that no consideration of Rs. 2500/- was ever received. He rather contended that registered sale deed dated 14.4.1975 was executed by him in favour of defendant IInd set. The amount of Rs. 8500/- received as consideration and possession of the disputed land had also been handed over to them. The contention of the defendant was that suit was filed in order to put pressure upon the defendant no.1 for the reason that earlier Will was executed by him in 1970 in favour of his nephew. However, as the behaviour of his nephew and the plaintiff had changed with passage of time, being dissatisfied, he executed another Will in favour of his daughters. As soon as plaintiff came to know about the said fact he instituted suit to harass the defendant no.1.The agreement dated 18.5.1974 relied upon by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated document.

(2.) The defendant IInd set i.e. defendant nos. 2 to 6 contested the suit by filing written statement and contended that they were bonafide purchaser of the disputed land and had no information about the agreement dated 18.5.1974. They are in possession of the disputed land and the sale deed dated 14.4.1975 executed in their favour had been acted upon. On the basis of pleadings two main issues framed by the trial court and evidence was led by the parties. The trial court after considering the evidence brought on record decreed the suit and directed the defendant no.1 Jamuna Singh to execute sale deed within a period of one month in pursuance of the agreement dated 18.5.1974. The trial court while deciding the issues no. 1 and 2 which were framed regarding execution of agreement dated 18.5.1974 and whether defendant IInd set i.e. defendants no. 2 to 6 are bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice to the disputed agreement found that defendant IInd set had failed to prove that execution of sale deed dated 14.4.1975 was bonafide act of defendant nos. 2 to 6 .

(3.) The finding of fact has been recorded that defendant nos. 2 to 6 were never in possession of the disputed land . The sale deed dated 14.4.1975 had never been acted upon . While coming to the said finding the trial court recorded that there were contradictions in the statement of the defendant IInd set i.e. defendant nos. 2 to 6 regarding knowledge of the agreement to sell. No proceedings for mutation of their name in the revenue record had been initiated nor any document had been produced to establish that they are in possession of the disputed land. The report of the Commissioner specifically states that there exist no 'Medh' on the spot as alleged by the defendant IInd set. Moreover the disputed land is the land of joint Khata of the parties and plaintiff is co-sharer in the possession of the land. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any partition of the disputed land and ,therefore, contention of the defendant IInd set that they were in possession of the disputed land was belied by the trial court.