BHIKHA RAM Vs. SURJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.1986 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Narnaul whereby suit for specific performance filed by the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby appeal preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs has also been dismissed. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Court of first instance i.e. appellants as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants.

(2.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.02.1980. It has been alleged that Smt. Surji widow of Jutha, resident of Village Nain, entered into an agreement on 11.02.1980 with the plaintiffs to sell agricultural land measuring 12 kanals and 12 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 217, Khata No. 325, situated in Village Nain, Tehsil Narnaul for a consideration of Rs. 6500/, out of which Rs. 6000/- had been paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed upto 14.06.1980 and the remaining amount was to be paid before the Sub Registrar. The expenses of registration of sale deed were to be incurred by the plaintiffs, who continued to be in possession of the property as tenants. It has been further alleged that Smt. Surji died somewhere in 1981 whereafter one Surja (defendant No. 1) claimed himself to be the nearest heir of Smt. Surji. It has been further alleged that the property has been mutated in the name of Government of Haryana on account of escheat because there was no legal heir to succeed Smt. Surji.

(3.) Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed their separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs, but the Haryana Government denied the same. The State denied the alleged agreement and asserted that it was forged and not binding upon the State. The agreement could not be enforced after the death of Surji. The State further alleged that the suit had been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No. 1.