BALWAN SINGH Vs. MANGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are in second appeal. They claimed that they are subsequent vendees without notice and for consideration and as such being bonafide purchasers are protected under law. They have claimed for setting aside the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance was decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated May 10, 1994. Consequently, the relief of permanent injunction was also claimed. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit on the averments that defendant No. 1 Suresh Kumar had agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiffs through an agreement dated May 10, 1994. At the time of the aforesaid agreement, an earnest amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1. The rest of the amount was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deed on or before June 15, 1995. Subsequently, through another agreement dated November 28, 1994 another amount of Rs. 15,000/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiffs to the aforesaid defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs claimed that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and to get the sale deed executed on payment of balance sale consideration but defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed. It was further maintained by the plaintiffs that instead of honouring the aforesaid agreement, the said defendant No. 1 had sold the land in dispute to the defendants Balwan Singh and others (the present appellants) vide sale deed dated May 8, 1995. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale deed was not binding upon their rights and prayed for a decree for specific performance of their agreement.

(3.) THE subsequent vendees i.e. defendants No. 2 to 5, felt aggrieved and filed an appeal. The learned first appellate Court after re-appraising the entire evidence on record affirmed all the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. It was held by the learned first appellate court also that defendant No. 1 had entered into the agreement dated May 10, 1994 with the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. A plea raised by defendants No. 2 to 5 i.e. subsequent vendees that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration and without notice was also negatived by the learned first appellate Court. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned first appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the said defendants.