WASSAN SINGH Vs. DEEP RAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. instant RSA No. 683 of 2011, Wassan Singh versus Deep Raj and others and RSA No. 1408 of 2011, Swarn Kaur versus Chanchala Devi and others, because both these appeals have arisen out of a single suit.

(2.) Plaintiff Thuru Ram (since deceased and represented by respondents no. 1 to 4 as his legal heirs) filed suit against defendant no. 1 appellant Wassan Singh and his wife Swaran Kaur respondent no. 5/defendant no. 2 (appellant in the connected RSA) for possession of the suit land measuring 30 kanals 14 marlas by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.9.1999. Case of the plaintiff is that defendant no. 1 being owner of the suit land agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 1,55,000/- per acre and received Rs. 2,10,000/- as earnest money and executed the aforesaid agreement. Sale deed was to be executed on 6.12.1999. Accordingly, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar with requisite amount on 6.12.1999 to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement but defendant no. 1 did not turn up. The plaintiff also served notice dated 10.12.1999 on defendant no. 1 for doing the needful but with no result. On the contrary, defendant no. 1 executed sale deed dated 22.11.1999 registered on 1.12.1999 regarding the suit land in favour of his own wife Swaran Kaur defendant no. 2 to defeat the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed is fictitious and null and void and does not effect the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but defendant no.1 committed breach thereof.

(3.) Defendants no. 1 and 2 filed separate written statements denying execution of the impugned agreement by defendant no. 1 and receipt of earnest money by him from the plaintiff. Defendant no. 1 pleaded that he had sold a buffalo to the plaintiff for Rs. 15,000/- and the plaintiff paid Rs. 12,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount after a month and obtained thumb impressions of defendant no. 1 on blank stamp paper which has been converted into alleged agreement to sell. Defendant no. 2 claimed to be bonafide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration.