ANGURI DEVI AND ORS. Vs. VIKAS BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order dated 24.03.2014 by which an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein- after referred to as the "CPC") for impleading the petitioners as legal representatives of defendant no.1 Basti Ram, has been allowed.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2004 against defendants no.1 to 25 who alleged to have sold the land in dispute for a total sale consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/- and received the entire sale consideration, but they became dishonest as the plaintiff came to know that in collusion with defendant no.26, they have executed bogus documents of the sale of the part of the suit land in favour of defendant no.26 by way of sale deed bearing Vasika Nos.7198 and 7239 dated 29.06.2006 and 7430 dated 03.07.2006. The defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, but failed. It is alleged that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to bear all expenses on account of execution and registration of the sale deed, but defendants no.1 to 25, having mala fide intentions, are delaying the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the cause of action for filing the suit arose firstly when defendant no.26 got executed and registered the aforesaid bogus sale deed in its favour in collusion with defendant nos.1 to 25 and 10 days before filing of the suit when the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff and finally on 18.07.2006 when the defendants flatly refused to accept the just and legal request of the plaintiff. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff has prayed for performance of the agreement by execution and registration of the sale deed and also to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession.

(3.) In the written statement filed by defendants no.2, 4, 6, 7 and 14, it was alleged that defendant no.1 Basti Ram had died on 25.12.2004, hence the suit against a dead person was not maintainable and defendant no.26, in its written statement, has alleged that it had paid full and final payment to defendants no.1 to 25 who had delivered possession to it at the spot, therefore, the only remedy is of seeking declaration and not specific performance.