SUGAN Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by defendant No.2 against judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance, has been decreed. In brief, Badle S/o Kare (defendant No.1) was the owner of land measuring 27 Kanals 02 Marlas. He alleged to have executed an agreement to sell dated 12.09.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs who are his father's brother's sons, for a sum of 5,00,000 and had received 4,00,000 as earnest money. The sale deed was scheduled to be executed on 08.03.2001 on payment of the balance sale consideration. The plaintiffs have alleged that they were present at the office of Sub Registrar on the date fixed, i.e. 08.03.2001, to perform their part of contract but defendant No.1 did not turn up. Subsequently, they came to know that defendant No.1 had transferred the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 by way of a relinquishment deed executed and registered on 04.10.2000.

(2.) Thus, the plaintiffs, besides seeking possession by way of specific performance also challenged the relinquishment deed as illegal, null and void. Both defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their separate written statements. Defendant No.1 admitted the execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money. His stand was that he has always been ready and willing to execute the sale deed. He denied the execution of relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.2 and had even denied his relationship with her of father and daughter. It was rather alleged that the relinquishment deed was obtained by defendant No.2 by practicing fraud. Defendant No.2 had alleged that the relinquishment deed was executed in her favour by defendant No.1 being her father. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were not having sound financial position to pay earnest money of 4,00,000 at one time and that the agreement to sell was prepared by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in collusion with attesting witnesses after the execution of relinquishment deed on 04.10.2000. She, thus, challenged the agreement to sell as a false and frivolous document. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement filed by defendant No.2.

(3.) The Trial Court initially framed issues on 08.11.2001, but on 08.06.2006 an additional issue No.3(a) was also struck. After appreciating the evidence, the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs after upholding the validity of the agreement to sell (Ex.P1). The learned First Appellate Court also held that once defendant No.1 had denied the relationship of father and daughter with defendant No.2, it was incumbent upon defendant No.2 to prove this fact before relying upon the relinquishment deed in her favour. It was also held that summary statement of defendant No.2 would not be sufficient to prove the relationship of defendant No.1 with her of father and daughter. The learned First Appellate Court held that defendant No.2 has, thus, no locus standi to challenge the agreement to sell (Ex.P1).