RANBIR SINGH Vs. BALWAN SINGH GAHLAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. No. 13915-C of 2011 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 47 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 13916-C of 2012 :

(2.) THIS is application for leave to appeal by legal representatives of Chander Kanta one of the legal representatives of original defendant no.1 Capt. Ganpat (since deceased). It is alleged that Chander Kanta died during pendency of first appeal, leaving behind two sons and also two sons of another pre-deceased son, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application, who were already party to the suit and first appeal, being the remaining legal representatives of original defendant no.1 Ganpat (since deceased). The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal : THIS is second appeal by Ranbir Singh one of the legal representatives of defendant no.1 Ganpat (since deceased) and also by defendants no.2 to 5.

(3.) DEFENDANT no.1, while admitting the agreement dated 12.04.1989 executed by him for 172 kanals land including the suit land measuring 120 kanals and also while admitting execution of sale deed dated 09.06.1990 for 52 kanals land in favour of the plaintiff, broadly denied the other plaint averments. It was pleaded that Mr. S. S. Budhwar, Advocate, Rohtak was counsel for defendant no.1 in all cases. Mr. Budhwar obtained signatures of plaintiff on blank papers and forged the alleged receipt and subsequent agreement dated 24.05.1990. DEFENDANT no.1 denied having executed the said agreement. DEFENDANTs no.2 to 5 pleaded that their father was in possession of the suit land as tenant. DEFENDANTs no.2 to 5 were mortgagees thereof. DEFENDANT no.1 agreed to sell the suit land to defendants no.2 to 5. Plaint averments were controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2006, instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,82,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 06.06.1990 till recovery. Against judgment and decree of the trial court, there were two first appeals one preferred by the plaintiff and the other preferred by appellants herein. Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide common judgment and decrees dated 04.06.2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by appellants herein and allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement.