JAGDISH SINGH Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first appeal purporting to be under S.96 of the Civil P.C. directed against the judgement and decree passed on 24-5-1976 by Mr. M.C. Jain, the then Civil Judge, Farrukhabad. The learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, namely, Ram Lal, Jauhari Lal, Mithu Lal and Madan Singh for specific performance of a contract to sell, against Smt. Phoolmati and her vendees who are now the appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case were that a deed in the nature of agreement to sell was executed on 11-2-1974 by Smt. Phoolmati in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. It was in respect of agricultural plots detailed at the foot of the plaint and the agreement was that after the conclusion of the partition proceedings and after obtaining the Sirdari rights in respect thereto, the deed of sale shall be executed. Consideration was agreed to be Rs. 22,000/-. On 11-2-1974, an earnest of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the defendant No. 1, Smt. Phoolmati by the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. These persons were never willing and ready to perform their part of contract by getting the sale deed executed after paying the remaining amount of balance consideration of Rs. 11,000/- The defendant No. 1, Smt. Phoolmati was, however, delaying the execution of the deed and ultimately executed the deed of sale in respect of the same property in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on 16-4 1974 and now refuses to perform her contract in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 5 to 7. The defendants Nos. 3 to 4 had full knowledge of the agreement. They also knew that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had already been paid by way of earnest money towards the part payment of consideration. They are, therefore, not bona fide purchaser and are bound by the agreement aforesaid entered into by the defendant No. 1. They are, therefore, liable to join the defendant No. 1 in execution of the deed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 5 to 7. Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 had not joined the suit as plaintiffs, and, therefore, they have been arrayed as defendants. It is said that if they show their unwillingness to have the agreement executed in their favour, the plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the entire sum of sale consideration of Rs. 11,000/- and get the sale deed executed in their favour.

(3.) The contest was put forth by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 only. Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 did not contest the suit. And, therefore, against the defendants Nos. 5 to 7 the suit has proceeded ex parte. Similarly, the defendant No. 1, Smt. Phoolmati has also not contested the suit and proceedings remained ex parte against her as well.