GURBACHAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. GURMIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Regular First Appeal has been filed by Gurbachan Singh defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vendor') and Ajaib Singh defendant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the subsequent vendee') against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1979 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Gurdaspur, vide which suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by Gurmit Singh plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the vendee') was decreed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that vide an agreement dated 13.12.1977 (Ex. P1), the vendor agreed to sell the land measuring 29 Kanals 1 Marla to the vendee for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the vendee to the vendor as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- was agreed to be paid by the vendee to the vendor before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed and got registered by the vendor on or before 15.11.1978. At the time of execution of the agreement, the land in question was under mortgage with the Primary Co- operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Mortgage Bank') and as per the agreement of sale the vendor was required to get a clearance certificate from the Land Mortgage Bank after clearing the loan amount of Rs. 30,000/-. According to the vendee, the vendor did not get the requisite clearance certificate from the Land Mortgage Bank after making payment of the loan amount. However, it was alleged that the vendee was always ready and willing and was still ready to perform his part of the agreement and was ready to make the payment of the balance amount to the vendor at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was further alleged that on 15.11.1978, the vendee had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur with the remaining sale consideration for getting the sale deed executed and registered in his favour. He also filed an application (Ex. P2) before the Sub Registrar about his willingness to perform his part of the agreement, but the vendor did not turn up on the said date. Immediately, he got issued a telegram to the vendor calling upon him to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement in question but the vendor refused to accept the aforesaid telegram. Thereafter, on 16.11.1978, the vendee served a legal notice (Ex. P5) on the vendor calling upon him to perform his part of the agreement, but instead of honouring the agreement in question, the vendor in utter violation of the terms of the same executed the sale deeds dated 23.11.1978 and 22.12.1978 (Ex. D1 and Ex. D2) in favour of the subsequent vendee. Therefore, the suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by the vendee against the vendor as well as the subsequent vendee on 1.1.1979.

(3.) IN his written statement, the subsequent vendee took the stand that he was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the agreement (Ex. P1) in question. He further took the stand that he was not aware of the agreement of sale deed 13.12.1977 (Ex. P1) executed by the vendor in favour of the vendee.