SUKHDEV KAUR Vs. HOSHIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, I propose to dispose of R. S. A. Nos. 245 and 246 of 2003 as both the appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Patiala dated 24-10-2002 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-appelant and partially accepting the appeal of defendant-respondent No. 1, Hoshiar Singh.

(2.) The instant appeals have been filed by the plaintiff-appellant 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 he is not entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 215-1993 executed between the plaintiff-appellant Sher Singh (now represented by his L. Rs. and for brevity to be referred as plaintiff-appellant) and defendant-respondent No. 1 Hoshiar Singh. It has further been held that Teja Singh, defendant-respondent No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land vide sale deed dated 3-5-1993 registered on 5-5-1994. However, in accordance with the stipulation made in the agreement to sell dated 21-5-1993 the suit of the plaintiff-ppellant has been decreed by the trial Court for recovery of Rs. l.00.000/- from defendant-respondent No. 1 being double the amount of earnest money of Rs. 50.000/-along with interest @ 12 per cent. p.a. from the date of the agreement i.e. 21-5-1993 till its actual realisation.

(3.) Brief facts which have led to the filing of the instant appeals are that the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff-appellants filed Civil Suit No. 26-T of 2000 dated 1-6-1994 seeking a declaration that the sale deed No. III dated 3-5-1994 registered on 5-5-1994 executed by defendant-respondent No. 1 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 2 is illegal, null and void and ineffective in respect of the rights of the plaintiff-appellants viza-viz defendant-respondent No. It was alleged that the aforementioned sale deed is a fraudulent act and the same has been executed by defendant-respondent No. 1 to deprive the plaintiff-appellants of their rights under the agreement dated 21-5-1993 between plaintiff-appellants and defendantrespondent No. 1. Further prayer was made seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 21-5-1993 with a direction to defendant-respondent No. 1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the land covered by the agreement and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. l.00.000/- being double the amount of earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-paid to defendant-respondent No. 1 along with interest @ 18 per cent. p.a. from the date of the agreement till the date of its payment. A further prayer was also made for relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellants from the suit land and from alienating, mortgaging, selling or creating any charge on the same. According to the averments made the agreement to sell was executed on 21-5-1993 by defendantrespondent No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffappellant. As stipulated the execution of the sale deed in respect of the suit land was slated on or before 21-5-1995. The rate of land fixed between the parties was Rs. 1,60.000/- per killa and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as earnest money was paid by the plaintiff-appellant to defendant-respondent No. 1 and the balance sale consideration was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar. It was further claimed that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the land in dispute and has been cultivating the same despite the fact that khasra-girdawari was in the name of brother of defendant-respondent No. 1. It has also been alleged that defendant-respondent No. 1 subsequently got it changed to his name at the back of the plaintiff-appellant for which he has filed an application for its correction.