SARWAN SINGH Vs. KANKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS prolonged civi litigation, by now spanning over a period of about three decades, appears destined, as by now at least, to have fluctuating fate of the parties. The appellant (here-in-after referred to as plaintiff) successfully sought a decree for specific performance with regard to agreement dated March 3, 1971, Ex.P1, pertaining to 110 kanals, 13 marlas of land being 2213/7842 share of 392 kanals 3 marlas when his suit was decreed by the learned Senior Sub Judge on May 31, 1973. The learned Single Judge, however, in RFA No. 350 of 1973 that was preferred against the judgment and decree rendered by learned Senior Sub Judge, reversed the same, thus, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Letters Patent Appeal that came to be preferred by the plaintiff bearing No. 335 of 1983, did not find any favour with the Division Bench and same was dismissed on March 4, 1991. Still aggrieved, plaintiff filed civil Appeal No. 2057 of 1996 in the Supreme Court of India and vide order dated January 15, 1996, order of DB, referred to above, was set aside and the matter was remitted to this Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the contentions urged by the parties, with the direction that matter be disposed of on its own merits. LPA No. 335 of 1983 by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated January 15, 1996 has, thus, been revived.

(2.) IN the backdrop of the fate of the case, in various Courts, as mentioned above, it becomes necessary to mention the facts, if not in their entirety, then at least in sufficient details.

(3.) BEFORE we might, however, focus our attention on the pleadings as reflected in the two separate written statements filed on behalf of defendant Kankar Singh, who was arrayed as defendant No. 1 and vendees from him, i.e., defendants 2 and 3, it would be useful to extract some portion of the plaint as the same has a great deal of bearing upon the controversy in issue. The plaint is in Punjabi but we are reproducing some part thereof, as follows, by translating the same into English as best we can do, after putting the same to learned counsel for the parties: