KIRPAL SINGH Vs. KARNAIL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having been unsuccessful throughout before the trial Court and thereafter, before the First Appellate Court, the unsuccessful defendants have preferred to assail the same through instant regular second appeal on the grounds spelled out therein. The facts that needs to be highlighted are that plaintiff Lillu Ram (now deceased) being represented by his LRs and other plaintiffs including plaintiff Budhu (now deceased) being represented by his LRs instituted against defendants Punnu Ram and others a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24th November, 1986 Ex.P2 for sale of land measuring 67 kanals 03 marlas duly described and depicted in the head note of the plaint situated in the village Dugal Khurd, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala on the contentions that the defendants were the owners of the land detailed in the plaint and through agreement to sell Ex.P2 had undertaken to sell it for a total consideration of Rs. 84,000/-and out of which had received earnest money of Rs. 10,000/-and which agreement was reduced into writing, whereby, it was undertaken that the sale deed shall be executed on or before 5th January, 1987 on payment of balance consideration amount. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have been ready and willing to undergo their part of the contract throughout along with the balance amount and to fulfill the conditions spelled out in the agreement but the defendants backed out of it and hence the suit in question and after the amendment of the suit have incorporated that defendants No.1 to 3 claimed to have sold these properties through three sale deeds dated 7th January, 1987 to the newly added defendants No. 4 to 7 and sought setting aside of the same as well.

(2.) The original defendants No.1 to 3 in the written statement denied having ever executed agreement to sell dated 24th November, 1986 and termed it to be forged and fabricated document and denied that they were owners of the property on the date of the suit and thus, refuted and denied having ever received any earnest money from the plaintiffs and in the written reply absolutely denied the averments of the plaint.

(3.) The subsequently added defendants No.4 to 7 in their written statements took the stand of denial of agreement to sell between the plaintiffs and their co-defendants No.1 to 3 and took the stand that defendants No.1 to 3 had agreed to sell this land with Zora Singh Brar through agreement to sell dated 16th October, 1986 Ex.D1 for a total consideration of Rs. 109118/-and had paid Rs. 38,000/-to defendants No.1 to 3 by way of earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 31st January, 1987 after payment of balance consideration amount and claimed that in view of the same Shish Pal defendant sold 1/3rd share to defendants No.4 and 5 and Giani Udham Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.6 and 7 through sale deed dated 7th January, 1987 and Punnu Ram defendant No.1. sold his 1/3rd share to defendants No.4 and 5 and Giani Udham Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.6 and 7, therefore, these answering defendants have come to be owners and in possession of this land by virtue of duly and validly executed sale deeds and further claimed that Hans Raj defendant had sold his share to defendants No.4 and 5 and Giani Udham Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.6 and 7 through registered sale deed dated 7th January, 1987 and therefore, claimed that these sale deeds were genuine and bonafidely undertaken and they were not aware of any such claim of the plaintiffs and absolutely refuted the same and sought dismissal of the suit.