RATAN KUMAR SAVNANI Vs. LAKHANLAL AGRAWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment decides F.A. No. 315/1994 and F.A. No. 286/1994. Short facts involved in both the appeals are that Lakhanlal Agrawal (Respondent No. 1 herein) entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property comprised in Survey No. 33A in area 0.95 acres situated in Tahsil Raghurajnagar, Distt. Satna from Badri Singh (Respondent No. 2 herein) for a consideration of Rs. 53,000/ - . The said suit property was adjacent to another property of Lakhanlal Agrawal, so he was anxious to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs, 53,000/ - . The agreement was reduced into writing on 24 -4 -1988 and the entire consideration was paid by Lakhanlal to Badri Singh in cash. Pursuant thereto the possession of the suit property was delivered to Lakhanlal. Badri Singh did not execute the sale deed and instead executed a registered sale deed in favour of Ratan Kumar Savnani (present Appellant) on 12 -4 -1989 for a sum of Rs.40,000/ - .

(2.) ON 17 -4 -1989, the present Appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 5 -A/89 in the Court of 1st Addl. District Judge, Satna for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit property against Badri Singh and Lakhanlal whereby the Respondent No. 1 came to know that the Respondent No. 2 (Badri Singh) has sold the suit property to the Appellant vide registered sale deed dated 12 -4 -1989.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit (Civil Suit No. 10 -A/89) for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24 -4 -1988 with the averments that he has been in possession of the suit property in part performance of the agreement and that the present Appellant was aware of the said agreement of sale at the time of purchase. It has been further pleaded that he was ready and willing throughout to perform his part under the contract and the Appellant being not a bona fide purchaser for value, is bound by the agreement of sale. Further it is contended that the Defendant Badri Singh was not competent to execute sale deed after having received the entire consideration and having delivered the possession of the suit property in part performance of the agreement. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that registered sale deed dated 12 -4 -1989 may be declared illegal and void. It has been pleaded by Lakhanlal that he submitted an application for seeking permission for construction of house and boundary wall. An inspection was made by the members of Panchayat and the permission was duly granted for construction. It has been averred in the plaint that at the time of purchase the foundation was already led on the part of the disputed property and the walls were erected for two rooms. Lakhanlal paid Rs. 1500/ - to Md. Hasim Ansari for construction of ceiling and doors on contract basis which was completed by him with the aid of his own money. He also constructed 24 pillars of stone on all the four sides to protect the suit property. A prayer for a decree for perpetual injunction has also been sought restraining the present Appellant from transferring the suit property in addition to a prayer for specific performance. Present Appellant and Respondent No. 1, Badri Singh submitted a joint written statement in Civil Suit No. 10 -A/89 denying the claim of the Plaintiff. The alleged agreement dated 24 -4 -1988 was refuted as a forged document without consideration. The readiness and willingness on the part of Lakhanlal has also been denied. On the other hand, it has been contended that the suit property was sold and transferred by Badri Singh to Ratan Kumar Savnani (present Appellant) for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/ - vide registered sale deed dated 12 -4 -1989 and possession of the suit property was also delivered at the time of sale. It is averred that the construction existing on the site was made by the present Appellant. It has been further pleaded that the Appellant was dispossessed from the suit property by Lakhanlal before hearing on the application for temporary injunction. The possession of the Plaintiff has been thus admitted, though, as of encroacher.