LAWS(P&H)-2010-4-327

AMAR NATH Vs. JAI BHAGWAN AND ORS

Decided On April 29, 2010
AMAR NATH Appellant
V/S
JAI BHAGWAN AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I am disposing of three appeals i.e. R.S.A. No. 952 of 2008, R.S.A. No. 2446 of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 3224 of 2008, all filed by Amar Nath, being interconnected. R.S.A. No. 952 of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 3224 of 2008 have arisen out of same Civil Suit No. 79 of 2001, whereas R.S.A. No. 2446 of 2008 has arisen out of a separate suit No. 13 of 2001/2005.

(2.) Amar Nath appellant filed Suit No. 13 of 2001/2005 against Jaimal Singh (since deceased and represented by respondents No. 1 to 7) and Phul Singh (respondent No. 8) alleging that the agreement to sell dated 22.09.1999 is null and void. Appellant alleged in the suit that he is owner in possession of land measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas (suit land) being 22/544 share of 27 kanals 04 marlas land. He had sold a part of his land vide sale deed dated 12.12.1994 to Jaimal Singh and Phul Singh (defendants in the said suit) and Hukam Chand and at that time, since they did not have full sale consideration, sons of Jaimal Singh borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from the appellant and executed pronote and receipt, which was also signed by Jaimal Singh. In the year 1999, Jailmal Singh and his son Jai Bhagwan paid Rs. 8,000/- to the appellant and obtained his thumb impressions on some papers, which were later on converted into agreement to sell, although the appellant never agreed to sell the suit land and the said agreement is result of fraud.

(3.) On the other hand, Jaimal Singh and Phul Singh filed Civil Suit No. 79 of 2001 for specific performance of agreement dated 22.09.1999 alleging that Amar Nath appellant herein agreed to sell the suit land measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas to the aforesaid plaintiffs for Rs. 31,625/- vide agreement to sell dated 22.09.1999 and received Rs. 8,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 21.08.2000. The aforesaid plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the defendant Amar Nath (appellant herein) committed breach of the agreement.