BHAJAN SINGH Vs. MAKHAN SINGH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhajan Singh, defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal against the order of Sub Judge 1st Class, Mukatsar vide which the trial Court had decreed the suit filed by plaintiffs, Makhan Singh and others for recovery of Rs.16,000.00(Rs.8,000.00 as earnest money plus Rs.8,000.00 by way of damages) in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.2.1974. Facts giving rise to the present appeal arc as under:

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant-appellant filed his own written statement. It was admitted that he was the owner of the land and had agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiffs but it was denied that he had received any earnest money to the tune of Rs.8,000.00 It was asserted by the defendant-appellant that the plaintiffs undertook to pay the earnest money of Rs.8,000.00 after obtaining the same from their Commission Agent but failed to do so. After the agreement had been got executed from the defendant, Makhan Singh, plaintiff asked Bhajan Singh, defendant to wait at the shop of one Karam Singh son of Gurdit Singh of Mukalsar and told him that he would bring Rs.8,000.00 from his Commission Agent but on return, he told him that the requisite amount could not be procured and as such asked him to come next day for taking the payment. Next day, Bhajan Singh reached the shop of Karam Singh, as agreed upon between him and Makhan Singh but to his great disappointment, Makhan Singh did not turn up. It was further alleged that on the next day, Bhajan Singh along with Dalip Singh, approached Makhan Singh, plaintiff and asked him to make the payment of Rs.8,000.00 whereupon the plaintiffs told him that they could not make any arrangement for the requisite amount and as such the contract should be considered as cancelled. Bhajan Singh was further told by the plaintiffs that he was free to make further alienation to any person he liked. As per averments made in the written statement filed by the defendant- appellant, it was in these circumstances that the suit land was sold by him to defendants No.2 to 5.

(3.) In the written statement filed by defendants No.2 to 5, it was asserted that defendants had purchased the suit land bona fide with consideration and without notice of the prior agreement to sell. Right to get the agreement dated 18.2.1974 enforced against them for specific performance was denied in view of the provisions of Sec. 19(B) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The existence of agreement dated 18.2.1974 was also disputed.