BHUPAL Vs. MAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Bhupal, Bishambhar and Kishan Lal defen dants from the decree of the learned Addi tional District Judge, allowing the appeal of Mam Chand and dismissing the appeal of Sukhey.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as follows. On 20th March, 1967, Mahabir as guardian of Mam Chand entered into an agreement with Sukhey defendant to purchase agricultural land for a sum of Rs. 8, 000.00 and paid a sum of Rs. 5, 500.00 in cash as earnest money. It was agreed that the sale deed would be got registered within three years and the balance of the sale consideration would be paid at the time of the registration of the document. Sukhey, however, did not exe cute the sale deed; instead he executed a sale deed on 7th September, 1968, in respect of a portion of that land in favour of the de fendants Nos. 2 to 4 who purchased the said land with knowledge and notice of the agree ment of sale which Sukhey had entered into with Mam Chand. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement but they failed to do so hence the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agree ment of sale and in the alternative for the refund by Sukhey defendant alone of the earnest money of Rs. 5.500.00 with pendente lite and future interest. The plaintiff had also alleged that though the sale deed was to be executed within three years possession of the land was delivered to him by Sukhey after entering into the agreement for sale.

(3.) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of the agreement but decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5, 500.00against Sukhey defendant No. 1. The suit was dismissed against defendants Nos. 2 to 4. Against that decision Mam Chand plaintiff and Sukhey defendant No. 1 preferred sepa rate appeals. The Appellate Court below allowed the appeal of the plaintiff Mam Chand and decreed the suit for specific per formance of the contract. The appeal filed by Sukhey was dismissed. Aggrieved the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have now come to this Court in second appeal.