JASWANT KAUR Vs. GURNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected appeals, filed separately by both the defendants, are directed against the same impugned judgment and are being decided together, as both are based on same set of facts and raise identical issues. However, for facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RSA No. 2846 of 2009.

(2.) Both these appeals, at the hands of defendants, challenge the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by the plaintiffrespondent, was decreed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate Court in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned judgment, are that defendant No.1 Smt. Jaswant Kaur was the owner of the suit property fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. Plaintiff was inducted as tenant in the said premises in the year 1982 at monthly rent of Rs.140/- per month, which was later on increased to Rs.150/- per month and plaintiff had installed a Toka Machine in the said plot and had been carrying on the business of sale of fodder. Later on, defendant No.1 Jaswant Kaur had agreed to sell the plot in dispute to plaintiff and had entered into an agreement for sale for total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- on 8.1.1990. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid as earnest money and date for execution of the sale deed was to be executed on 2.2.1990 after making the payment of balance sale consideration. After execution of agreement to sell dated 8.1.1990, defendant No.1 had received a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of one Kirpal Singh and thus, defendant No.1 had received the total amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff. In pursuance of the agreement to sell, defendant No.1 had executed a sale deed on 2.2.1990 in favour of plaintiff but when the sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar for registration, one Kamaljit Singh son of Shri Mangat Singh, R/o Chhachhrauli had produced an injunction order from the civil court and because of that, the sale deed could not be registered. The aforesaid Kamaljit Singh had filed a civil suit against Smt. Jaswant Kaur on 27.1.1990 with the plea that he had also share in the property left by Diwan Singh and that Jaswant Kaur and other legal heirs of Diwan Singh had no legal right to alienate any portion of the property. Since plaintiff was not party to that suit, hence it was suggested by defendant No. 1 that original agreement dated 8.1.1990 and sale deed dated 2.2.1990 be given to her, so that she may file the written statement and get the injunction vacated. While taking that representation of defendant No. 1 as true, the plaintiff had handed over the original sale deed and the agreement to sell to defendant No. 1 and that suit had remained pending in the court for many years and stay was not vacated and on account of this reason, the sale deed could not got registered. Earlier the plaintiff had enquired about the result of case from defendant but for many years, there was no result and as such defendant No.1 had assured the plaintiff that as and when suit shall be decided, intimation would be given to the plaintiff and only then the sale deed would be got registered. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 had compromised with Kamaljit Singh in the above mentioned civil suit, and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn and after decision of that suit defendant No. 1 did not inform the plaintiff, rather had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 21.1.2000. Thereafter, defendant No.2 had tried to take the possession of the disputed land from the plaintiff. It was further added that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, in terms of agreement to sell dated 8.1.1990 and he had already made the payment of major part of the sale consideration and was still ready to make the payment of balance sale consideration for getting the possession of the suit land and that even defendant No.2 was also bound by the aforesaid sale deed, because she was very well conversant with the agreement to sell between plaintiff and defendant No.l. Hence, the plaintiff sought a decree for symbolical possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement in question.