BAHADUR SINGH Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff Bahadur Ram has filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1995 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, who allowed the appeal of the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1993 passed by the trial Court.

(2.) BEFORE I proceed further, I may also state that this appeal was filed at the first instance against Lakhvinder Singh, Chadat Singh, Takhwinder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Richhpal Kaur, the subsequent transferees and Surjit Kaur, Darshan Singh, Sukha Singh and Jagiro, the vendors. Lakhvinder Singh died during the pendency of this appeal and respondent No. 5 Richhpal Kaur is the LR of Lakhvinder Singh. Richhpal Kaur was served personally. Similarly, respondents No. 2 to 4 were served by way of publication, but nobody gave appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 i.e. the subsequent transferees. In this manner, I am disposing of this appeal only with the assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant.

(3.) BAHADUR Ram filed a suit for specific performance against defendant No. 1 to 9 and the case set up by him in the trial Court was that he was a tenant (Gair Marusi) over the agricultural land measuring 101 kanals 18 marlas, fully described in the head -note of the plaint, situated at village Salpani Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar. Defendants No. 1 to 4 were the owners of the suit land and they executed an agreement dated 21.7.1983 to sell the land measuring 48 kanals 19 marlas being 1/2 share of the land measuring 97 kanals 18 marlas for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/ -. At the time of execution of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 9,406/ - was paid as earnest money to defendant No. 1 to 4 and the sale -deed was to be executed and registered upto 21.11.1983 on payment of the remaining sale consideration. Since the land measuring 97 kanals 18 marlas was previously lying in the form of jungle, as such plaintiff made it cultivable. Regarding other 1/2 share of 97 kanals 18 marlas, defendants No. 1 to 4 also executed another agreement of sale in favour of Mela Ram son of Bahadjur Ram plaintiff. After the agreement, plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract to purchase the suit land and was similarly ready and willing at the time of institution of the suit. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that on the stipulated date i.e. 21.11.1983 he remained present in the office of Sub -Registrar, Thanesar to got the sale -deed executed and registered from respondents No. 1 to 4 but all these defendants did not turn up. Consequently, he got his presence marked before the Sub -Registrar and also attested an affidavit in this regard. Subsequently, defendants No. 1 to 3 sold the land measuring 62 kanals 12 marlas to defendants No. 5 to 8 in the form of four separate sale -deeds dated 2.1.1984, being three registered on 4.1.1984 and the fourth on 18.4.1984 comprising land measuring 15 kanals 13 marlas each against a sale consideration of Rs. 14,600/ -. The aforesaid sale -deeds were executed in the names of individual defendants No. 5 to 8. Defendants No. 1 to 4 executed another sale -deed dated 2.1.1984 registered on 14.8.1986 regarding other land measuring 35 kanlas 5 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/ - in favour of defendant No. 9 in pursuance of civil Court decree dated 8.4.1986 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra in a suit titled as Smt. Richhpal Kaur v. Smt. Surjit Kaur etc. In that decree dated 8.4.1986, a previous sale deed dated 24.7.1984 of land measuring 20 kanals 8 marlas earlier executed by Smt. Jagiro in favour of plaintiff has illegally been declared null and void. The suit for specific performance of Smt. Richhpal Kaur, defendant No. 9, culminating into impugned decree dated 8.4.1986 was alleged to be illegal and without merit. All the aforesaid five sale -deeds had allegedly been executed by defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendants No. 5 to 9 in pursuance of another agreement of sale dated 12.12.1983. The impugned agreement as well as sale -deeds have been stated to be null and void in view of previous existence of agreement of sale dated 21.7.1983 in favour of plaintiff. It is also alleged that defendants No. 5 to 9 were in the knowledge of existence of the previous agreement dated 21.7.1983 and in spite of this, they got the execution of impugned subsequent agreement dated 12.12.1983 as well as five sale -deeds from defendants No. 1 to 4. The defendants were repeatedly requested to admit the alleged claim of the plaintiff over the suit land measuring 48 kanals 19 marlas in pursuance of agreement dated 21.7.1983, but to no effect. It may also be mentioned here that the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 2.5.1984.