DALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RAJPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants having lost in both the courts below are in second appeal.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff Rajpal filed suit against appellants as defendants no.1 and 3 to 5 and also Jaiveer Singh as defendant no.2. Jaiveer Singh has since died and is represented by defendants no.3 and 4 (appellants no.2 and 3) as his legal representatives.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that defendants no.1 and 2 i.e. Dalbir Singh and Jaiveer Singh agreed to sell 1000 sq. yds. land in suit to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 23.03.2006 @ Rs.525/- per sq. yd. and received Rs.2,00,000/- as earnest money and executed the agreement. R. S. A. No. 1338 of 2011 2 Defendant no.2 gave his consent to the agreement by affixing signatures on the agreement and also by making writing in his own hand and under his own signatures on receipt of earnest money. Defendants no.1 and 2 entered into another agreement dated 25.03.2006 for sale of 200 sq. yds. land in suit and received Rs.20,000/- as earnest money and executed necessary agreementcum- receipt. Sale deeds of both the properties were to be executed on or before 20.07.2006. Plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and accordingly, reached the office of Sub Registrar on 20.07.2006 to get the sale deeds executed in terms of the agreements, but defendants no.1 and 2 did not come present and committed breach of the agreements. Plaintiff then served notice dated 07.08.2006 on defendants no.1 and 2. The notice was received by defendant no.1, whereas notice sent to defendant no.2 was received with endorsement of postal authority that the addressee was not available. The plaintiff learnt that defendants no.1 and 2, in order to defeat the impugned agreements, transferred the suit properties to defendants no.3 to 5 by way of release deeds dated 30.03.2006. It may be mentioned that defendants no.3 and 4 are wife and minor son of defendant no.2, whereas defendant no.5 is minor adopted son of defendant no.1. The plaintiff lodged criminal case regarding the aforesaid fraud committed by defendants no.1 and 2 with the plaintiff. The said release deeds have also been challenged in the suit being illegal and null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Since defendants committed breach of the agreements, the plaintiff filed suit for specific R. S. A. No. 1338 of 2011 3 performance of the agreements besides challenging the release deeds.