NATHU RAM Vs. NARINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by defendants No. 13 and 14 directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement dated 18.4.1988 has been decreed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF , Narinderjit Singh, filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 18.4.1988. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit land was owned by defendants 1 to 12. Defendant No. 1 on behalf of himself and as attorney of defendants 2 to 11 vide agreement dated 18.4.1988 agreed to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per acre and received Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money. It was further stated that defendant No. 1 represented that he will procure power of attorney on behalf of defendant No. 12 also. Sale deed was to be executed on 28.10.1988 but with mutual consent, the date of performance of agreement was extended to 15.3.1989. Plaintiff contended that he had been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and was prepared to get the sale deed executed from defendants 1 to 12 on payment of balance price but they committed breach of agreement and defendants 9 to 11 sold their share in the suit land in favour of defendants 13 and 14 who were well aware of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that the sale made by defendants 9 to 11 in favour of defendants 13 and 14 is not binding on him and he is entitled to specific performance of agreement. Upon notice of the suit defendants 2 to 11 on one hand and defendants 13 and 14 on the other hand, filed separate written statement. Defendants 2 to 11 contended that they never authorised defendant No. 1 to enter into agreement with the plaintiff regarding the sale of their share and if power of attorney is proved, the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation. They also submitted that they have sold their share to defendants 13 and 14 for valuable consideration. On the same terms, written statement was filed by defendants 13 and 14. Defendants 1 and 12 did not appear and accordingly, they were proceeded against ex parte. Plaintiff filed replication wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed by the trial Court. Parties were given due opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 2 to 11 and also defendants 13 and 14 being aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court preferred two separate appeals. The learned Additional District Judge on reappreciation of evidence on record, vide the impugned judgment and decree affirmed the finding of the trial Court and thereby dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the second appeal only by defendants 13 and 14.