BHUPAL AND ORS. Vs. MAM CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Bhupal, Bishambhar and Kishan Lal defendants from the decree of the learned Additional 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/ - and paid a sum of Rs. 5,500/ - 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 execute 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 defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who purchased the said land with knowledge and notice of the agreement 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 agreement of sale and in the alternative for the refund by Sukhey defendant alone of the earnest money of Rs. 5,500/ - with pendent 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 suit was contested by the defendants on a number of grounds. Sukhey had alleged that he had asked the plaintiff to receive back the sum of Rs. 5,500/ - and return the agreement of sale. During the trial he, however, advanced the plea that the sum of Rs. 5,500/ - was given to him as loan which was to be satisfied out of the yield of the land in three years' time. However, it was also pleaded that the land remained in the cultivation of Sukhey. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 contended that they were bona fide purchasers for value and without notice of the agreement of sale.