SUKHA SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal of defendant no.2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1984 passed by learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Patiala whereby suit for specific performance filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.1987 passed by learned District Judge, Patiala whereby appeal preferred by appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as they are arrayed in civil suit.

(3.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant as pleaded in plaint for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that defendant no.1-Chhotta Ram agreed to sell the land measures 56 kanals 5 marlas vide agreement dated 20.08.1969 (Ex.PA) for a total consideration of Rs. 7,000/- in favour of plaintiff and on that day, plaintiff- Balwant Singh allegedly paid Rs. 2,500/- as earnest money to defendant no.1. It was also mentioned in the agreement that possession of the allegedly sold land had been given to the vendee in part performance of the agreement (Ex.PA). It was also pleaded that defendant no.1 had to pay instalments regarding the land in dispute, therefore, he had agreed to execute the sale deed after payment of all instalments and on getting the proprietary rights in the suit land, but defendant no.1 kept on replying in negative. Defendant no.1 and Kapur Singh, father of defendant no.2- Sukha Singh wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land, therefore, plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant no.1-Chhotta Ram. During the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff came to know on 13.09.1977 that defendant no.1 had sold the suit land to defendant no.2-Sukha Singh for alleged sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. The plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants on 15.10.1979. Defendant no.2 was having full knowledge of the agreement (Ex.PA) because the land had been sold by defendant no.1 through attorney Kapoor Singh, who is none else but father of defendant no.2. Hence, suit was filed.