KAMLA Vs. LACHHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is on behalf of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Kamla and Kunwar Sain, who resisted a suit filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for relief of specific performance of contract dated 21-12-1966 for sale of nine agricultural plots with a total area of 5. 30 acres in District Mathura. In addition to the present appellants- defendants the executant of the agreement in question namely Ninua was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit. An another subsequent purchaser of the property in question, namely Smt. Ram Dulari was arrayed as defendant No. 4 in the suit. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 negotiated the sale of the disputed plots with the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 10,000/- out of which he received a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as earnest money on the date of execution of the agreement and he gave possession of the said agricultural plots on that date itself. The defendant No. 1-Ninua subsequent to the said agreement deposited ten times revenue of the plots with the authorities concerned. But he in collusion with the appellants- defendants No. 2 and 3 and also the defendant No. 4 negotiated a deal of transfer of those plots in their favour. Having got the information of this development, the plaintiffs approached the appellants-defendants No. 2 and 3 and tried his best to dissuade them from purchasing the plots by giving them due information that a prior agreement of sale had already been obtained by them from the owner (Ninua) and its possession has also been taken over by them. The plaintiffs also approached the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and warned them against execution of the sale deed even at the Sub-Registrar's Office where Ninua and other defendants were present for executing of the sale documents in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. All these efforts of plaintiffs proved of no avail and out of nine plots in question, seven plots were illegally transferred by Ninua in favour of the appellant- defendants No. 2 and 3. Later on, the defendant No. 4 who is respondent No. 4 in this appeal also illegally obtained a sale deed of the remaining two plots in question from Ninua on 18-4- 1968.

(2.) THE plaintiffs also claim that they had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement in question towards the execution of the sale deed. But when they found no recourse open to them except to file a suit before the competent Court of law, they preferred this Suit No. 76 of 1968 in Court of Civil Judge, Mathura, where it was resisted by defendant No. 1 Ninua who filed his written statement whereas the, defendants No. 2 and 3 together filed a common written statement and on behalf of the defendant No. 4 another written statement was filed before the trial Court.

(3.) THEREFORE, aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of the lower appellate Court, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have come up in this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'c. P. C. ' ).