BHOPAL SINGH Vs. NEPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance alleging that defendant No. 1 had executed a registered agreement to sell dated 4. 1. 1973 for a total consideration of Rs. 10,500/- in favour of the plaintiff and that a sum of Rs. 5,500/- was paid as advance. The plaintiff contended that this advance was paid basically to enable the defendant No. 1 to repay the bank loan. It was also agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 5000/-would be paid at the time of the registration of the sale-deed which was to be executed within a period of two years. The plaintiff contended that based on the registered agreement, he was given the possession of the land on 4. 1. 1973 itself and, since then is tilling the land. The plaintiff contended that he gave a notice dated 8. 11. 1974 to the defendant No. 1 to execute the sale-deed and, in-spite of the receipt of the notice, the defendant No. 1 did not turn up before the Sub Registrar for the execution of the sale-deed. The plaintiff contended that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant No. 1, for reasons best known to him, did not come forward to honour his part of the agreement. The plaintiff contended that subsequently he came to know that the defendant No. 1 had sold the land to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered sale-deed which was nothing but a sham transaction. Consequently, the plaintiff prayed that the relief for specific performance be granted and, in the alternative, a decree of Rs. 10,000/- be passed.

(2.) THE defendant No. 1 resisted the suit alleging that no agreement was ever executed by him and that no money was advanced by the plaintiff or was taken by him. Further, no possession of the land was ever given to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 contended that he was a simple rustic person whereas the plaintiff was a smart and a clever man, in whom the defendant No. 1 had deposed full trust and faith and who used to help the defendant No. 1 in various works. The defendant contended that he had in fact executed an agreement to sell in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1971 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and pursuant to that agreement, a sale-deed dated 5. 11. 1974 was executed in their favour and, since then, the said defendants are in possession. The defendant No. 1 submitted that he had executed a security bond with the plaintiff for the purposes of securing a job and had not executed an agreement to sell. The plaintiff denied that he had signed the document knowing it to be an agreement for sale. The defendants further alleged that the suit was barred by section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) THE defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed their written statement alleging that the plaintiff and the defendants belonged to the same family and were related and that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers for value and had no knowledge of any agreement being executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The said defendants further reiterated about the execution of the agreement of 1971 and the execution of the sale-deed of 1974 in their favour.