HARIKISHAN UDAISINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-12-1983 of Additional District Judge, Khurai, passed in Civil Appeal No. 12-A of 1982 (arising out of the judgment and decree dated 1-9-1982 of Civil Judge, Class I, Khurai), whereby, while reversing the decree of Trial Court, plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract with respect to transfer of suit land, has been decreed.

(2.) THE brief history' of the case is that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit before the Trial Court on 30-10-1979, with the assertion that, defendant No. 1 Chatarsingh entered into an agreement of sale on 3-3-1979, regarding the land bearing Khasra No. 202/5, area 6 acres, situated in village Semraghat, for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/ -. Rs. 3,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 Chatarsingh and rest of the amount i. e. Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the document. It was also agreed that the execution of the sale-deed would be effected on 12-5-1979, i. e. on the full moon day of Baisakh Sudi 15 of Hindu calendar month. The possession over 4 acres of land was with Hanumantsingh brother of the plaintiff, and possession of 2 acres of land was to be delivered to the plaintiff on execution of the sale-deed. The agreement was entered by Raghuvirsingh son of defendant No. 1, on behalf of his father, defendant No. 1. It was further asserted that the defendants 2 and 3 (appellants here) had notice of this agreement, but, despite notice, defendants 2 and 3, i. e. Harikishan and Bhagwansingh, got the sale-deed executed in their favour in July, 1979. It was further alleged that the plaintiff is ready to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, he sought a relief of specific performance of contract of sale by the defendants. The defendant No. 1 Chatarsingh died during pendency of the appeal in this Court and his legal representatives, i. e. respondents 2 (a) and 2 (e) have been substituted thereafter.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 denied the execution of agreement and pleaded that the agreement of sale is a forged document. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded ignorance regarding the previous agreement of sale between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. They have further denied possession of plaintiff over any part of the suit land. They claimed themselves to be bona fide purchasers on payment of sale-consideration.