JAWALA SINGH Vs. PARKASH KAUR @PARKASH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the "Code") challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that suit of the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.2.1990 could not be decreed in his favour because the defendant-respondent No. 3 and 4 are the bona fide purchasers of the land which was subject matter of a subsequent agreement to sell. However, the suit of the plaintiff- appellant has been decreed by granting him the alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 40,000/- with future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per annum from the date of payment of earnest money i.e., 15.2.1990 till its full and final realisation. The cost was also imposed on the vendors/defendant-respondents No. 1 and 2.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, which are necessary to decide the controversy raised, are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 15.2.1990 executed by one Jamni Devi, defendant-respondent No. 2, being the attorney of Parkash Kaur defendant- respondent No. 1. It was asserted that Parkash Kaur was owner in possession to the extent of 1/6th share of the suit land and Jamni Devi, mother of Parkash Kaur, was also owner in possession to the extent of 1/6th share and another daughter of Jamni Devi, Kailash Rani was also owner in possession of 1/6th share. Jamni Devi, in her capacity as attorney of both the daughters, agreed to sell 1/6th share of three of them in the suit land on 15.2.1990 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. It is alleged that she received the entire sale consideration. According to the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff-appellant who is the vendee, was entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour any time he liked. The plaintiff- appellant further averred that another Power of Attorney of defendant- respondent No. 1, Jai Singh son of Rachna Ram, sold 4 bighas 19 biswas of land out of the suit land to his sons, namely, Narinder Singh and Baljinder Singh vide sale deed dated 22.3.1990 for a total consideration of Rs. 27,000/-. Jamni Devi and Kailash Rani executed the sale deed in respect of their share of the land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on 1.9.1992 but defendant- respondent No. 1 i.e., Parkash Kaur did not come forward to perform her part of the contract, which resulted into filing of the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANT -respondents No. 3 and 4 took the stand that defendant-respondent No. 2 had no right to alienate the share of defendant-respondent No. 1. Only Jai Singh, who was the Attorney of defendant-respondent No. 1, could have alienated the share of defendant-respondent No. 1, and, accordingly, he has executed the sale deed for a total sale consideration of Rs. 27,000/-. They have further asserted that they are the bona fide purchasers. Both the Courts below found that defendant-respondents No. 3 and 4 are the bona fide purchasers. Affirming the finding on the aforementioned issue, the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala observed as under :