SARDAR Vs. RAM KHILAUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two set of suits, one by respondents being suit No.58 of 1969 which was filed by Ram Khilauna, Charni, Rathi, since deceased represented by legal representatives, hereafter called convenantees the term which has throughout been used by the Courts below as well, Covenantees sought the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale against Ram Khilari and Nihal Singh, hereinafter addressed, like before by Courts below, as vendors. The case as set up by them was that vendors had entered into an agreement of sale with them in respect of Chak No.92 measuring 23.83 acres, which is the land in suit, on 19.4.69 for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- out of which vendors accepted a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 as earnest money as advance payment of the price of the land settled between covenantees and vendors. In pursuance of the said agreement covenantees were put in possession over the land in suit and they put a hut on it and sowed sugarcane crop in one acre but on 7-5-69 the vendors sold the same land (land in suit) to Sardar and Sher Singh, hereinafter called as vendees for a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 though the vendees know of the agreement of the sale between the covenantees and vendors in respect of the land in suit but vendees still purchased it. Other averments of readiness and willingness and sending of notice etc. were also made by covenantees. The vendors, however, denied having ever agreed to sell the land in suit according to vendors they sold the land in suit to vendees whereafter covenantors with some persons approached them and protested against sale of land in suit to vendees and on the pressurisation of some senior citizen of the village they agreed to sell to the covenantors some other property which they wanted to purchase accordingly on their asking they signed the papers which covenantors have since misutilised by fraudulently preparing the agreement deed for the land in suit. Vendees also filed their separate written statement and denied knowledge of the agreement deed and also joined with vendors in denying execution of the agreement deed and settlement of contract of sale between vendors and covenantees for sale of the land in suit. This suit of covenantees was decreed by the trial Court and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the first appellate Court, hereafter called 1st appellate Court. Second Appeal No.1974 of 78 has been filed by vendees impugning the decree passed by Courts below decreeing the suit of the covenantees (suit No.58 of 69). Second suit being suit No.58 of 71 was filed by vendees seeking declaration of their title and possession over the land in suit pursuant to attachment of the land in suit by the order of Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Cr.PC and its apprehended release in favour of the Covenantees. Suit No.58 of 71 was dismissed by the trial Court and also by the 1st appellate Court. Both the Courts heard and decided the two suits jointly. second Appeal No. 1975 of 78 has been filed by vendees impugning the decree o the Courts below dismissing their said suit for declaration and possession of the land in suit. Vendees claimed title and possession over the land in suit under the sale deed dated 7.5.69 whereas covenantees claimed possession over it on the basis of the agreement deed dated 19.4.69 (Ext.12) both of which were executed by the vendees for the same land.

(2.) As observed above trial Court as well as the Ist appellate Court decreed covenantees suit and dismissed vendees suit. Finding arrived at by the Courts below was that the sale deed was dishonestly got executed to defeat the agreement of sale and that vendors plea that it was not executed by them which was fraudulently procured was disbelieved for want of proper proof. It was also found that vendees had prior notice of the agreement deed executed by vendors for sale of land in suit to covenantors and they purchased the land in suit in bad faith. Agreement deed was held proved having been duly executed by vendors.

(3.) Shri Murlidhar, learned Senior Advocate who appeared for appellants (Vendees) in both the appeals has not given emphasis to challenge the findings of fact which have been recorded by the Courts below for decreeing Suit No. 58 of 69 and for dismissing Suit No. 58 of 7 1 against which review can be legally sought by the appellants in this Court which has to interfere only on the grounds of substantial question of law having been either wrongly decided or left undecided though it was required to be decided for having arisen in the case. No such illegality in arriving on the findings of fact by the Courts below could be pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate.