VEER SINGH Vs. UDAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2000 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karera District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.20-A of 1992 rejecting the suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement to sell dated 1.3.1989 Ex.P/1. In this appeal, the appellants are referred as 'plaintiffs' and respondents as 'defendants'.

(2.) The following admitted facts have come on record that :

(3.) In brief, the facts of the plaint are that the defendant no.1 Uday Singh had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the disputed property to the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 on 1.3.1989 Ex.P/1 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The plaintiff no.2 was minor at the relevant time and his father I.e. plaintiff no.3 acted for him as guardian. Rs.4000/- was paid to the defendant no.1 as part of the consideration who in turn delivered the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs. The agreement to sell was registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Karera. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant no.1 in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, has further received on 20.3.1989 one bullock cart with two oxen worth Rs.6000/-, silver kardhani and two payals worth Rs.3000/- and Rs.500/- in cash in all Rs.9500/- as further consideration. The sale deed was to be executed up to 1.4.1989 but the defendant no.1 instead of executing the registered sale deed went on assuring the plaintiffs. The defendant no.1 colluded with defendant no.2 to 4 and bent upon executing the registered sale deed in their favour in order to defeat the aforesaid sale agreement in favour of the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 whereas, defendants no. 2 to 4 were aware about the sale agreement. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part as per the sale agreement dated 1.3.1989. They are still ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and further to bear the expenses of registered sale deed right from the beginning. However, the defendant no.1 has avoided the sale, hence, the suit for specific performance was filed on 27.9.1989 against defendant no. 1 to 4. During pendency of the suit, the defendant no.1 executed the sale deed on 28.9.1989 Ex.D/1 in favour of the defendants no.6 to 9 with connivance of defendants No.2 to 4.