DEVINDER SINGH ALIAS DALVINDER SINGH Vs. MANSHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the defendant-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-11-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur upholding the judgment and decree dated 24-5-2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla. The Civil Judge vide her judgment and decree has decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and has passed a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31-5-1990 on payment of balance sale consideration after adjusting the advance money of Rs. 85,250/- within two months. It was further directed that on receiving the balance sale consideration, defendant-respondent Nos. 4 to 6 would execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 according to terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. The defendant-appellants who were the subsequent purchasers were directed to join the conveyance deed. The findings recorded by the Civil Judge were affirmed by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary to decide the controversy raised in the present appeal are that defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were the owner of the suit land as they had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 23-6-1983 from one Ralkiat Singh S/o Santa Singh. Mutation in the name of the defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 was sanctioned. In pursuance of agreement to sell dated 31-5-1990, defendant-respondents agreed to sell the suit land @ Rs. 10250/- per bigha in favour of the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3. An amount of Rs. 85,250/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6. The date of execution of the sale deed fixed between the parties was 15-6-1992 when the remaining sale consideration was also to be paid. However, the possession of the suit land was delivered by defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The allegations further are that subsequently defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 dispossessed the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from the suit land forcibly and illegally. The defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 had also agreed to redeem the suit land before 15-6-1992 from the Punjab Land Mortgage Bank, Malerkotla, which was the date fixed for execution of the sale deed. The repeated requests of plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 for execution of sale deed did not bear any fruit. The plaintiff-respondents came to know that defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were trying to sell the land on higher price, which led to the filing of a suit for permanent-injunction by them against defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6. After the institution of the suit for permanent-injunction, plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 came to know that defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 have sold the suit land to defendant-appellants for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- vide sale deed dated 16-5-1991. It is in these circumstances that suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 31-5-1990 and suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 being civil suit No. 259 of 11-6-1991.

(3.) Defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in their written statement denied the execution of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3. They also denied the receipt of any earnest money from them. It was alleged that the agreement to sell set up by plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was a forged and fictitious document. However, the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant-appellants has been admitted. Supporting the stand taken by the defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6, the subsequent transferees defendant-appellants claimed that they were bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice of any earlier agreement to sell. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed :-