MOHAN SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Briefly noticed, the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession as owner against defendants No. 1 & 2 through specific performance of the agreement dated 22.03.1984 for land measuring 28 kanals as described in the head note of the plaint and in the alternative prayed for the relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants No. 3 to 11 to transfer equal area i.e. 28 kanals out of their land in favour of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the agreement to sell dated 22.03.1984, Ex. PW 1/2 had been executed by Parkash Kaur-defendant No. 3 (mother of minors i.e. defendant Nos. 1 & 2), Joginder Singh (Predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 3 to 10) and Jaswant Singh (defendant No. 11) in favour of the plaintiff, Radian Singh (since deceased) and Mai Singh (defendant No. 12). It was pleaded that the sale consideration stipulated under PW 1/2 was that the plaintiff-Rachan Singh and Mai Singh would bear the litigation expenses on behalf of minors (defendant Nos. 1 & 2) and in consideration thereof, plaintiff-Rachan Singh would be entitled to 2/3rd and Mai Singh (defendant No. 12) 1/3rd share in one half of the suit land and the remaining = share would be retained by the minor sons of Parkash Kaur i.e. defendant Nos. 1 & 2. It was further pleaded that in terms of the agreement dated 22.03.1984 Ex. PW 1/2, if the minors i.e. defendant Nos. 1 & 2 do not comply with the agreement upon attaining majority then equal area can be taken from the land of Parkash Kaur (defendant No. 3), Joginder Singh (Predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 3 to 10) and Jaswant Singh (defendant No. 11).

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs holding such an agreement i.e. Ex. PW 1/2 as voidable and in holding that no permission had been sought by Parkash Kaur for entering into such an agreement on behalf of the minors and also on the ground that the consideration for such agreement had not been proved on record.

(3.) Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2009, the Additional District Judge, Roopnagar has dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.