PRITPAL SINGH Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 1422 of 1985, Regular First Appeals No. 142 and 257 of 1979.

(2.) REGULAR First Appeals No. 142 and 257 of 1979 arise out of suit filed by Ved Parkash plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) where by his suit for specific performance of the contract of the sale regarding shop No. 30 situated in New Grain Market, Bhatinda, stated to have been entered into by the plaintiff and in the alternative suit praying for decree for joint ownership and possession of share in both the shops, was decreed by the trial Court. A preliminary decree was passed for possession by way of specific performance of share of shops No. 29 and 30 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 i. e. State of Punjab. It was also held that the plaintiff and defendant No. i. e. Pritpal Singh are owners of shops No. 29 and 30 by virtue of oral agreement. The order passed by the Administrator was also held to be illegal. Administrator, Consolidation Department, Punjab was directed to execute the sale deeds of shops No. 29 and 30 afresh in the joint name of Ved Parkash and Pritpal Singh, defendant No. 3 The plaintiff and defendant No. 3 were also directed to pay the balance amount in equal shares subject to adjustment of the amount already deposited by the parties. Plaintiff was held entitled to apply for final decree by partition as he was held entitled to get specific portion of the shops which may fall to his share on partition. Regular First Appeal No. 142 of 1979 has been filed by Pritpal Singh defendant No. 3 whereas Regular First Appeal No. 257 of 1979 has been preferred by the State of Punjab, challenging the passing of the preliminary decree by the trial Court. Regular Second Appeal No. 1422 of 1985 has been filed by Pritpal Singh defendant impugning the final decree.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff. State of Punjab after acquiring some land for the proposed new Grain Market in Bhatinda, carved out plots for shops and sold the same in Public Auction in June, 1956, Plaintiff attended the auction held at the spot and gave bid for shop No. 30. His bid being the highest was accepted for Rs. 6100/- On the same very day, shop No. 29 was auctioned in the name of defendant No. 3 Pritpal Singh for Rs. 3100/ -. At the time of auction, the plaintiff as well as Pritpal Singh defendant No. 3 entered into an oral agreement vide which they decided to keep both the shops in their joint names and requested the officer conducting the auction to issue Challan form for deposit of 25 per cent of the price of the shops in their joint names After the challan forms were issued on 18 6. 1956, plaintiff deposited the money in the treasury A sum of Rs. 1,525/- was deposited under Receipt No. 4846 and Rs. 552/- under receipt No. 4853. Thereafter, plaintiff also deposited Rs. 2100/- for shop No. 30 in his own name on 30. 6. 1961 and defendant No. 3 started depositing the balance amount due for shop No. 29. Plaintiff having received no further intimation regarding the time of deposit of the balance amount, made enquiries where upon he learnt that defendant No. 3 was trying to get the Sale Deeds in respect of both the shops executed from the Department in his own name. Plaintiff, therefore, wrote, a registered A/d letter to the Colonisation Officer on 23. 12. 196b. The Colonisation Officer summoned the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 3, who appeared before him on 17. 2 1969. According to the plaintiff. Administrator without giving any opportunity of hearing and without enquiring into the matter with regard to tampering with the record, passed an order vide which both the shops No. 30 and 29 were ordered to be registered in the name of defendant No. 3 This order is stated to be arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and against the rights of the plaintiff. Collusion between defendant No. 3 and staff of defendant No. 2 was also alleged as they changed the words in the various correspondence from 'ved Parkash' and 'pritpal Singh' to Ved Parkash for Pritpal Singh. Plaintiff claimed that he never was the agent for defendant No. 3 nor was his attorney and the tampering of the record was done with an ulterior motive to deprive the plaintiff of his right title and interest in the shop. Plaintiff remained always willing and ready to perform his part of the contract and was ready to deposit the balance amount and interest, if any alongwith the stamp and registration charges and to get the Sale Deed registered in his name regarding shop No. 30 but the Administrator refused to honour his commitment. In the alternative it was claimed that in case Court comes to the conclusion that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 regarding joint ownership of both the shops, then notwithstanding the deed for plot No. 29, having been got registered by defendant No. 3 in his favour the plaintiff claimed a decree for joint ownership and possession declaring the plaintiff as owner and entitled to separate possession of share in both the Shops No. 29 and 30,