BALDEV SINGH Vs. CHHOTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants-Baldev Singh, Bahadur Singh, Kulwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1998 of Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby he decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff (Chhota Singh) for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell Ex. P-1 dated 23-6-1990 in reversal of the judgment and decree of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Malerkotla dated 16-12-1994 whereby he had dismissed his suit for specific performance and had given him only money decree.

(2.) Facts : Plaintiff-Chhota Singh filed suit for possession of land jea measuring 10 bighas out of land measuring 18 bighas 3 biswas as detailed in the hearing of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of village Baurhai Kalan by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990, in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 60,800.00 (Rs. 30,000/- as earnest money and Rs.30,000.00 as liquidated damages and Rs.800.00 as interest) at the rate of 1% per month accrued on the sum of Rs. 30,000.00 paid as earnest money with effect from 23-6-1990 to the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22-9-1990. It was alleged in the plaint that vide agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990 Nachhatar Singh (respondent-defendant) agreed to sell land measuring 10 bighas Kham, out of land measuring 18 bighas 3, biswas as described in jamabandi for the year, 1986-1987 situated in village Baurhai Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla with other rights with him (plaintiff-Chhota Singh) at the rate of Rs. 9000.00 per bighas Kham and received Rs. 30,000.00 as earnest money and promised to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee by 21-8-1990. Possession was to be delivered to him at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed, Remaining sale consideration was to be paid to Nachhattar Singh by 21-8-1990. Expenses of stamp and registration were to be borne by him (Chhota Singh). It was stipulated in the agreement to sell that if Nachhatar Singh prevaricated and did not agree to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee by 21-8-1990 in terms of the agreement, he (Chhota Singh) could compel him to execute sale deed through Court. It was also stipulated in the agreement that if he (Chhota Singh) did not want land, he could recover Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,000.00 paid as earnest money and another Rs. 30,000.00 by way of liquidated damages. It was stipulated in the agreement that if he (Chhota Singh) prevaricated and did not perform his part of the agreement, earnest money paid by him would be liable to be forfeited to Nachhattar Singh. Nachhattar Singh failed to execute sale deed in his favour per that agreement despite requests. On 21-8-1990, he went to the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ahmadgarh with the balance sale consideration and the amount required for meeting expense of stamp and registration with a view to obtaining sale deed in his favour from Nachhattar Singh. He waited for him the whole day long but he did not turn up. At last he made an application to the Joint Sub-Registrar, for getting his presence marked. Nachhattar Singh was called several times till the Joint Sub-Registrar rose for the day. He made endorsement on the application and returned it to him. He has always been ready and willing to obtain sale deed in his favour per agreement dated 23-6-1990. He was always ready with the remaining amount of consideration and the amount required for meeting the expense of stamp and registration but it was Nachhattar Singh who defaulted and ran away from performing his part of contract. Vide different sale deeds dated 17-7-1990 and 19-7-1990 Nachhattar Singh sold the land to Baldev Singh etc. defendants. Land could not be sold to Baldev Singh etc. on 17-7-1990 and 19-7-1990 when he (Nachhattar Singh) was under an agreement to sell land to him vide agreement dated 23-6-1990. Sale of the land by Nachhattar Singh during the subsistence of agreement to sell in their favour was not binding on him (Chhota Singh), when Baldev Singh etc. were aware of the agreement dated 23-6-1990 between Nachhattar Singh and Chhota Singh. Sale of land in favour of Baldev Singh etc. in breach of agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990 in his (Chhota Singh) favour, necessitated the filing of this suit by Chhota Singh against Nachhattar Singh, Baldev Singh etc. defendants.

(3.) Baldev Singh etc. defendants Nos. 2 to 5 contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that they are purchaser of the land in suit from Nachhattar Singh in pursuance of a prior agreement to sell in favour of Baldev Singh dated 23-5-1990 executed by Nachhattar Singh. It was further urged that agreement dated 23-6-1990 was false and forged prepared by the plaintiff and Nachhattar Singh in connivance with each other.