RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. HARDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25-1-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Datia in Civil Suit No. 5-A/94, by which the suit for specific performance of contract, filed by the respondent no.1 has been decreed.

(2.) It is not out of place to mention here, that the appellant no. 1 Raghuraj Singh, who had purchased the property in dispute from the appellants no. 2 and 3 has withdrawn his appeal, and by order dated 16-1-2017, he has been transposed as respondent no.2, therefore, the effect of withdrawal of appeal by a subsequent purchaer shall be considered at a later stage.

(3.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the respondent no.1 had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract on the ground that Smt. Prema/Defendant no.1 was the exclusive owner of the disputed property i.e., Survey No. 650/1(ka) area 4.089 hectares situated in village Khadaua Tahsil Seonda, Distt. Datia having inherited after the death of her husband Batoli. Smt. Prema/Defendant no.1 had taken loan and therefore, She agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff, and accordingly, She executed an agreement to sell on 23-1-1992 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of which Rs. 80,000 were paid by the plaintiff and it was agreed that the remaining Rs. 20,000 would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The possession was also given, however, inspite of repeated requests, Smt. Prema/Defendant no.1 didnot execute the sale deed. On 11-6-1993, one Ramgopal, resident of the village, came along with defendant no.2 to inspect the disputed property and informed that the defendants no.2 and 3/appellants no.2 and 3 are inclined to sell the disputed land, because Smt. Prema/Defendant no.1 has executed a Gift deed in their favor. It was further pleaded that Smt. Prema/Defendant no.1 has never admitted the execution of such gift deed, however, She is not interested in executing the sale deed and wants to take back the possession of the land in dispute. It was further pleaded that even if Smt. Prema/Defendant no.1 has executed any Gift deed in favor of the appellants no. 2 and 3, then the same is not binding. It was further pleaded that since, the plaintiff is a member of Scheduled Caste and his yearly income is less than Rs. 6000, therefore, he is exempted from making payment of Court Fee. Later on, the plaint was amended and it was pleaded that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants no. 2 and 3/appellants no. 2 and 3 have sold the disputed land to the defendant no.5/respondent no.2 by registered sale deed dated 14-7- 1993 and accordingly, it was prayed that the sale deed dated 14-7- 1993 executed in favor of the defendant no. 5 is not binding on the plaintiff.