LAWS(P&H)-1993-8-222

TEHAL SINGH Vs. GURNAM ADHAR SINGH

Decided On August 23, 1993
TEHAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
GURNAM ADHAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This single judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 836 of 1987 "Tehal Singh and others v. Gurnam Adhar Singh and another" and 837 of 1987 "Karnail Singh and another v. Smt. Sant Kaur deceased through LRs and two others", as both of them have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 8.10.1986 passed by Shri A.S. Garg, Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and involve identical questions of facts and law.

(2.) Gurnam Adhar Singh, through his general attorney Gurjodh Singh, entered into an agreement to sell dated 2.9.1974 in favour of Tehal Singh, Santokh Singh, Darshan Singh and Karnail Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 23,414/-. Rs. 2,000/- were paid to the proposed vendor as earnest money. The sale deed was to be got executed and registered on 15.6.1975, failing which the proposed vendees were entitled to sue for specific performance of the contract. Since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 254/79 on 24.7.1978. The suit after contest was decreed by Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Kurukshetra vide his judgment and decree dated 31.8.1982. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 170/13 of 1984.

(3.) Smt. Sant Kaur and Smt. Gurmeet Sudhar Kaur through their general attorney, Gurjodh Singh, entered into a agreement to sell dated 2.9.1974 of agricultural land with Karnail Singh and Santokh Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 46,828/-. Rs. 4,000/- were paid as earnest money. It was stipulated that the sale deed will be executed on 15.6.1975, failing which the proposed vendees would be entitled to sue for specific performance of the contract. Since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 272/79 on 31.7.1978. The suit after contest was decreed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra vide his judgment and decree dated 31.8.1982 which were impugned by the defendants in Civil Appeal No. 135/13 of 1984.