HARINDERPAL SINGH Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1986 passed by the trial Court, was dismissed.

(2.) The facts necessary to resolve the controversy between the parties as set out in the plaint are that Rani widow of Mai Singh defendant No. 1 entered into agreement to sell 1 /5th share of her land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. In this regard, she executed agreement to sell dated 18-3-1975 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. On 18-12-1983, the plaintiff tendered the balance consideration of Rs. 10,000/- to Rani, defendant No. 1, but the later refused to perform her part of the contract. On 24-12-1983 the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 had already sold her entire share in the land to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 vide two separate sale deeds dated 19-12-1983 and 20-12-1983, including the share of the land which she, by virtue of the aforesaid agreement, had agreed to sell to the plaintiff. Being faced with this situation, the plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18-3-1975 and in the alternative also prayed for a decree for the recovery of Rs. 20,000/- against the defendants i.e. Rs. 10,000/- which had been paid as earnest money and Rs. 10,000/- by way of damages. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that he was always willing to perform his part of the agreement. The sale made in favour of defendants 2 and 3 was null and void as they had full knowledge of the agreement executed between plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The sale deeds are actuated with mala fide and are ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff.

(3.) In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, execution of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff was denied. Defendants 2 and 3 in their separate written statements pleaded that they had no knowledge or notice of the agreement dated 18-3-1975 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. They took a specific stand that they purchased the land mentioned in the sale deeds dated 19-12-1983 and 20-12-1983 for consideration and they were bona fide purchasers for consideration and without notice. It was further pleaded that agreement executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff could not be specifically enforced.