KHOOBIRAM Vs. URMILA CHOUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 30-4-2008 passed by the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Execution Case No. 1A/2000X03X07.

(2.) Briefly stated relevant facts are that on 5-11-1992 respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted Civil Suit No. 1 A/2000 with allegations that the defendant/petitioner owned an agricultural land comprised in Survey No. 1031/1 min in area 0.355 hectare situated at village Girwai, Tahsil and District Gwalior (M.P.). He executed an agreement of sale dated 28-11-1990 in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration at the rate of Rs. 32,500/- per bigha. Total consideration was to the tune of Rs. 55,250/-.He did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs despite there being readiness and willingness on the part of the latter. Instead, he executed registered sale deed dated 25-6-1996 in favour of defendants/respondents No. 3 and 4 for a consideration of Rs. 89,000/-. Plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted Civil Suit No. 1 A/2000 against defendant/petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4 for specific performance of agreement of sale and restoration of possession which was forcibly taken by respondents No. 3 and 4 during pendency of the suit. Declaration was also sought that the registered sale-deed dated 25-6-1996 is null and ineffective. After trial learned Trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 13-5-2003 granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant/petitioner was directed to receive balance consideration in pursuance of the sale-agreement dated 28-11-1990 and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It was further directed that in case if defendant/petitioner fails to receive the balance consideration and execute the registered sale deed within a period of two months, plaintiffs would be entitled to get the sale deed executed from the Court by way of execution.

(3.) Respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted First Appeal No. 188/03 against the aforesaid judgment and decree which was dismissed on 22-8-2006 which was also upheld by the Apex Court on 14-3-2007.