RAM DIYA Vs. HUKAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for specific performance was initiated by the present appellant seeking enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 9.5.1994. As per the agreement, the total sale consideration of the property was Rs. 2 lacs and the sale was to be completed by 31.7.1994. The appellant had paid Rs. 1,80,000/- to the respondent No. 2 as earnest money. On the appointed day the respondent failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar which led to the filing of the instant suit.

(2.) The plea as set up by the respondent No. 2 to refute the agreement to sell was that he was brought to Sonepat and the agreement to sell was executed under the influence of liquor. Respondent No. 1, who being a subsequent purchaser was impleaded later on, also denied the case of the plaintiff-appellant.

(3.) The learned trial court decreed the suit and directed the sale to be completed by enforcing the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant. In appeal, the findings were reversed by the first Appellate Court by observing that the agreement to sell was in favour of three persons, namely, the plaintiff/appellant and his two sons, namely, Narender Kumar and Ramesh Chander and since they were not impleaded as parties in the suit, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It went on to dismiss the suit in totality.