ARVIND KUMAR Vs. MURTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dtd. 19/7/2014 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dtd. 8/11/2017 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that Industrial Plot No.659 admeasuring 875.28 sq. yards was owned by one Sh. Dayal Singh son of Hira Singh and Balbir Singh son of Shri Nirmal Singh c/o Bahlson and Company, Cycle Spare Parts Dealer, Gill Road, Ludhiana. The said plot was allotted to them by the Chandigarh Administration. At the time of allotment there was a bar on sale of the said industrial plot for a period of 15 years from the date of completion. On 18/2/1974, before the period of 15 years had expired, the said vendors sold the plot to Smt. Murti Devi and Smt. Chandra Wati. At the time of sale No Objection Certificate was not taken from the Chandigarh Administration and since the 15 years' period was not over, no mutation was entered and the plot was not transferred in the integrity of this name of Smt. Murti Devi and Smt. Chandra Wati. The plaintiff-appellant claims to being a tenant in half portion of the premises. It was alleged that on 18/6/1995, Smt. Murti Devi and Smt. Chandra Wati agreed to sell the said industrial plot to the plaintiff-appellant for a total sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000.00. Rs.2,00,000.00 was given as earnest money. However, no date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as the property had not been mutated in the names of Smt. Murti Devi and Smt. Chandra Wati. In 2004 the property is stated to have been transferred in favour of Smt. Murti Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi as in the meantime Smt. Chandra Wati had expired. It was further averred in the plaint that Smt. Murti Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi avoided to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and on 2/12/2004 the plaintiff-appellant came to know that Smt. Murti Devi and Smt. Bimla Devi were trying to sell the property to defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4 and had applied for No Objection Certificate from the Chandigarh Administration. Hence, the suit for specific performance and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.4,28,000.00 was filed. On notice, defendant- respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement and took the plea that the suit was based on forged and fabricated documents and that the plaintiff-appellant was actually a tenant in a portion of the plot in question. The agreement to sell was denied so was the payment of the earnest money. It was further stated in the written statement that defendant- respondent Nos.1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 28/5/2004 with defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4 who had also filed a suit for specific performance. It was further the stand taken that the defendant- respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the plaintiff-appellant were in collusion and that even the defendant-respondent Nos.3 and 4 were not ready and willing to integrity of this perform their part of the contract. Lastly it was the stand taken that 50% of the share in the property had been transferred by the Estate Officer in favour of defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide letter dtd. 21/3/2003 and the matter regarding transfer of the remaining 50% of the share was still pending.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :