AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. ANOOP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. The opposite party nos.3 and 4 are proforma respondents, hence there is no need to issue notice to them.

(2.) This petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dtd. 25/11/2023 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2015, Anoop Kumar and others vs. Shital Das and others, contained as Annexure no.1 to the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a suit for specific performance was filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 with regard to certain land situated in village Kot Saray, Pargana Magalsi, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya. The respondent nos.3 and 4 had executed unregistered agreement to sale on 22/10/1986 in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Since the respondent no.4 was minor at the time of execution of such agreement to sale, it was recorded in such agreement that when permission is granted by the appropriate authority then actual sale deed shall be made out. Consolidation proceedings were initiated in the village and the old Gata nos. 502, 501 and 504 were changed to Gata nos.178, 181 and 187, respectively. At the time of execution of the agreement to sale, the names of respondent nos.3 and 4 were also not recorded in the revenue records, as is evident from the perusal of the said agreement to sale, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure no.2 to the petition. When the respondent no.4 became major, respondent nos.3 and 4 executed a sale deed on 30/7/2010 in favour of the petitioner after receiving full consideration, a copy of the sale deed as been filed as Annexure no.3 to the petition. After the execution of sale deed dtd. 30/7/2010, the name of petitioner was also recorded in the revenue records, a copy of the Khatauni has been filed as Annexure no.4 to the petition. The petitioner came into possession after the sale deed dtd. 30/7/2010 was executed in his favour and he was using the land according to his own will and without any hindrance, when respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a civil suit for specific performance bearing Original Suit No.341 of 2010 for agreement to sale dtd. 22/10/1986 without explaining delay of 24 years in filing the said suit. The respondent nos.1 and 2 also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, paper no. 6 ga 2. The respondent nos.3 and 4 filed their objections stating that respondent no.4 was minor at the time of such agreement to sale and therefore it was null and void ab initio and also that no permission was taken from the District Magistrate, Ayodhya for such sale to be effected.