NARINDER KAUR Vs. NAGINA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts, below, whereby the suit for specific performance, filed by the plaintiff, was decreed by the trial Court and the Appeal, filed by the defendants, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Nagina Singh, plaintiff, filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.10.1968, on the allegations that Pritam Singh had executed the said agreement to sell his land measuring 20 Bighas 18 Biswas for Rs. 10,500/- in favour of Nagina Singh, plaintiff, and Hazara Singh, defendant No. 5, and that a sum of Rs. 300/- was paid to Pritam Singh, at the time of the execution of the agreement and that the remaining amount of Rs. 7500/- was to be paid before the Sub Registrar, at the time of registration of the sale-deed. It was also agreed to between the parties in the said agreement that after the partition and the sanctioning of mutation, the sale-deed would be executed within a period of one month. It was alleged that the mutation regarding the partition of the land was sanctioned on 15.6.1971 and on the basis of the said mutation, the land measuring 20 Bighas 18 Biswa, detailed in para 2 of the plaint, was given to Pritam Singh, during partition proceedings and this entry was also made in the jamabandi. It was alleged that after the sanctioning of the mutation on 15.6.1971, the plaintiff approached Pritam Singh and asked him to execute the sale-deed as per the agreement, but he postponed the matter. It was alleged that on 15.7.1971, the plaintiff had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar and had got his presence noted therein. It was alleged that the Sub Registrar had called Pritam Singh, but he was not present there. It was alleged that the plaintiff had also served registered notice to Pritam Singh to execute the sale-deed, but of no effect. It was alleged that on the other hand, Pritam Singh, defendant No. 1, in connivance with defendant Nos. 2 to 5, had resiled from the agreement. It was alleged that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were brothers and the son of defendant No. 5, Hazara Singh and they knew about the agreement of sale between the plaintiff and Hazara Singh with Pritam Singh. It was alleged that Pritam Singh had executed the sale deed in respect of land measuring 20 Bighas 18 Biswas dishonestly in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 on 14.9.1971 and in this manner, the rights of the plaintiff had been jeopardised. It was alleged that Pritam Singh could not have made the sale- deed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, after the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 5, Hazara Singh. It was alleged that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff accordingly sought a decree for specific performance and in the alternative, for the refund of the amount of Rs. 1500/- along with Rs. 5000/-, suffered by him as loss.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale, on payment of remaining amount of Rs. 9000/- (Rs 10,500/- minus Rs. 1500/-). The Appeal, filed by the defendants, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the findings of the trial Court.