NARINDER SINGH Vs. ASSA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment & decree dated 17.9.1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter described as 'the first appellate Court') whereby the appeal of the defendant-respondent No. 1 was accepted and the judgment & decree dated 9.1.1981 of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the trial Court') were set aside.

(2.) Initially, Narinder Singh and Gurdial Singh (since deceased and represented by Narinder Singh, his legal representative) had filed a suit for perpetual injunction requiring respondent No. 1 and one Smt. Chanan Devi (since deceased and represented by her legal heirs) not to interfere in their possession over the suit property. It was pleaded that vide agreement dated 5.1.1976, respondent No. 1 had agreed to sell the property to them in equal shares for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was received by him as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, while remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid on or before 15.6.1976, which was the date fixed for execution of the sale deed. It was further pleaded that actual possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiffs at the time of entering into this transaction, but respondent No. 1 failed to execute and register the sale deed before the appointed date and, therefore, the time for doing so was extended up to 30.6.1977 by executing a fresh agreement dated 4.6.1976. The suit property was comprised in two portions and the one situated in village Dihana was previously in part possession of one Diwan Chand as tenant and the plaintiffs had alleged that they had taken possession thereof as sub-tenant under said Diwan Chand. A receipt with regard to surrender of possession was stated to have been executed by Diwan Chand. Since respondent No. 1 was alleged to have violated the terms of the agreement to sell and was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs, they were constrained to file the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, respondent No. 1 appeared and contested the suit. He denied any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs and also denied the receipt of any money from them. The possession of the plaintiffs was also denied. It was pleaded that Joginder Singh son of Waryam Singh of village Dihana was in possession of the land measuring 26 kanals and 8 marlas situated in village Mauja Mazara as tenant at will, whereas the land situated at village Dihana was possession of one Parkash son of Milkhi Ram of that village, out of which, land measuring 4 kanals 2 marlas was sold to Smt. Chanan Devi, who was in possession thereof through said Parkash as her tenant.