KARTAR Vs. GORDHAN DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by defendant No. 3 Kartar, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) Gordhan Dass - plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed suit against appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the trial court). The plaintiff alleged that Jai Singh - defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land measuring 31 kanals 11 marlas, being l/8th share of 158 kanals 05 marlas land and 94 kanals 14 marlas land mentioned in the plaint, to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 11.02.2003 for Rs. 4,30,000/- and received Rs. 1,30,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on 11.04.2003 on payment of balance sale price. Some part of the suit land was mortgaged with defendant No. 2 - bank. The said mortgage was to be got redeemed by defendant No. 1 before execution of the sale deed. There being State holidays from 11.04.2003 to 15.04.2003, plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar on 16.04.2003 after prior information to defendant No. 1 for getting the sale deed executed and registered in terms of agreement, but defendant No. 1 did not come present and committed breach of the agreement. In spite of notice sent by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, the latter did not comply with the terms of the agreement. On the other hand, defendant no. executed gift deed dated 24.06.2004 in favour of defendant No. 3 regarding the suit land. The said gift deed has also been challenged in the suit. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement to sell.

(3.) Defendant No. 1, in his written statement, pleaded that he was residing in Rajasthan and he came to Village Balyali, where the suit land is situated, to lease out the suit land. The plaintiff expressed willingness to take the suit land on lease. The plaintiff, after serving liquor and food to defendant No. 1, obtained his signatures on many papers and agreed to take the suit land on lease at Rs. 13,000/- per annum rent. Plaintiff promised to pay the lease amount on 13.04.2003. The plaintiff, however, did not pay any amount to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 denied having executed the impugned agreement to sell. Defendant No. 1 admitted that he had gifted the suit land to his brother defendant No. 3, who is now owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 3 pleaded to be bona fide transferee of the suit land without notice of the impugned agreement.