SUKHA Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendants second set against the decree and judgment dated 18-11- 1964 of the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 412 of 1963 confirming the decree and judgment dated 25-9-1963 in original Suit No. 451 of 1962 of the first Munsif, Bulandshahr by which the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of contract for sale in respect of certain agricultural plots mentioned at the foot of the plaint was decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff brought the suit on the allegations that defendant No. 1 Vijai Singh (now defendant- respondent) entered into a contract for sale and executed a written agreement on 11-9-1963 agreeing to sell half share in the various plots mentioned in the agreement deed for a sum of Rs. 4,500.00. Out of that amount a sum of Rs. 2,150.00 was paid to him in cash and another sum of Rs. 1,350.00 had been adjusted as that amount had been taken on loan by Vijai Singh from the plaintiff on the basis of the pronote dated 20-9-1959. A balance of Rs. 1,000.00 only had thus to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed and registered within one year after the bhumidhari sanad had been obtained in respect of those plots by defendant No. 1 and permission for sale was also obtained by him from the consolidation authorities. The plots were sirdari plots at the time when the agreement for sale was executed. It was further alleged that the defendant did not execute the sale deed within the stipulated period although the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Defendant No. 1 avoided to execute the sale deed. It also came to light that defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement for sale subsequently on 5-11-1962 with defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the same plots, hence the suit.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed several issues. It decided the main issue in favour of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement for sale in his favour and had received Rs. 3,500.00 as part consideration therefor. It, however, decided another issue in favour of defendants 2 to 4 that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of prior agreement. But it held that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. With these findings it decreed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal, the lower appellate court held that defendants 2 to 4 had notice of the prior agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff and as such, the sale in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was liable to be set aside. The agreement for sal e in favour of the plaintiff was held to be genuine. With these findings, the judgment and decree of the lower courts were confirmed.