SUNITA AND ORS. Vs. RAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, who were Defendants No. 2 to 5 before the trial Court, have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit filed by Plaintiff-Respondents No. 1 and 2 for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question executed by Respondent No. 3 (Defendant No. 1) was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.2.2004 executed by Respondent No. 3 in respect of the suit land by declaring judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 suffered in favour of the Appellants by Respondent No. 3 as null and void and not binding upon their rights alleging that Respondent No. 3, who was owner of suit land, entered into an agreement to sell in question for the sale of the suit land @ Rs. 4,25,000/- per acre (i.e. total amounting to Rs. 21,32,969/-) and received an earnest money of Rs. 7,00,000/- and executed the aforesaid agreement by putting his thumb impression on the same in the presence of witnesses. The remaining amount of sale consideration was to be paid on 17.2.2004 i.e. on the date of execution and registration of sale deed. However, on 17.2.2004, the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 mutually agreed to extend the time of execution and registration of sale deed upto 1.4.2004 and a writing to this effect was also made on the backside of the agreement. On 4.3.2004, the Plaintiffs tendered the balance sale consideration to Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 3 and requested him to execute the sale deed in their favour. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 got drafted a sale deed and after going through its contents, Defendant No. 1 put his thumb impression on the sale deed in the presence of witnesses. However, when the sale deed was produced for registration before the Registrar, he refused to register the same on the ground that the land was under attachment vide order dated 1.3.2004 on a petition under Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Appellants and their mother. Due to the aforesaid reason, both the parties agreed to extend the time of registration of sale deed upto 30.11.2004 regarding which a writing was also made on the backside of the agreement to sell. On coming to know that the said land had been released from attachment, the Plaintiffs requested Defendant No. 1 to get the sale deed executed and registered in their favour. However, Defendant No. 1 avoided the request of the Plaintiffs by giving false assurance. On the other hand, Defendant No. 1 in collusion with his wife and the Appellants got passed a decree dated 30.10.2004 in favour of the Appellants in civil Suit No. 243/1 on the basis of some compromise deed dated 26.8.2004. It was averred that the Plaintiffs went to the Registrar's office on 30.11.2004 along with necessary expenses for registration of the sale deed as they had already paid the total sale consideration but Defendant No. 1 did not turn up. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs met Defendant No. 1 and requested him to get the sale deed registered in their favour but he refused and told them that a judgment and decree regarding the suit land has been passed in favour of the Appellants. Defendant No. 1 also refused to return the sale consideration. Thereafter, a legal notice was served upon the Defendants. No reply to the said legal notice was sent. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the Defendants appeared and filed their separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 (now Respondent No. 3) in his written statement raised various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that Defendant No. 1 was in dire need of Rs. 7,00,000/- in February, 2004 which was arranged through his step brother Rameshwar and in good faith he put his thumb impression/signatures on several blank papers/stamp papers and took the said loan from the Plaintiffs with the help of his step brother. Defendant No. 1 never intended to sell his agricultural land nor he was legally competent to sell the same being under attachment in the month of February, 2004. It was further pleaded that agreement to sell was altogether false, fabricated and forged document. There was no privity of contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 for sale of the suit land and he was in continuous and cultivating possession of the same. It was further averred that market value of the agricultural land was not less than Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre and not Rs. 4,25,000/- as alleged in the plaint. Drafting/execution of the sale deed on 4.3.2004 was also denied. Receipt of balance sale consideration was also denied. It was further pleaded that due to various litigations filed by his wife, he was compelled to enter into a compromise with his wife and consequently, the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 was passed in favour of the Appellants. Receipt of the legal notice was denied. All other averments made in the plaint were also controverted and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.