CHANDGI RAM Vs. BAGIRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-9-1990 passed by the Additional Disctrict Judge, Bhiwani, by which the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18-1-1989 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani (decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents) was upheld.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Bhagirath and Roshan Lal (sons of Smt. Girdawari daughter of Achhi widow of Chimna son of Parsada), resident of village Devrala, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, filed a suit for possession of one-half share out of the total land measuring 139 Kanlas 4 Marlas, fully detailed in the plaint. The plaintiffs-respondents averred that they are owners of the suit land qua one-half share; that on 18-7-1985 the plaintiffs-respondents entered into an agreement with the defendants-appellants to alienate their share in the land, in dispute, for a sum of Rs. 96,000/-; that, on the day of execution of the agreement-deed, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as earnest money was paid; that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15-11-1985 and the possession of the land was delivered to the defendants-appellants on 18-7-1985 as per the terms of the agreement; that it was also agreed that on the failure of the defendants-appellants to perform their part of the contract, the earnest money of Rs. 35,000/- would be forfeited and the plaintiffs-respondents would be entitled to recover Rs. 35,000/- more and that, ultimately, the defendants-appellants failed to perform their part of the contract and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondents filed the present suit.

(3.) THE defendants-appellants contested the suit and raised certain preliminary objections that the plaintiffs-respondents have no locus standi to file this suit; that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction; the the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the suit is not maintainble in the present form; and that the plain-tiffs-respondnets have not come in Court with clean hands. However, it was admitted that, prior to the execution of the agreement to sell, the plaintiffs-respondnets were the owners of the land, in dispute. It was specifically alleged that the defendants-appellants were in possession of of execution of the agreement-deed, that, since the sale-deed could not be executed due to the fault of the plaintiffs-respondnets, so the defendants-appellants remained in possession of the suit land as tenants; and that, accordingly, the suit is liable to be dismissed.