BANTA SINGH Vs. HAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment four regular second appeals (RSA Nos. 2374 of 1989, 710 and 2002 of 1990 and 926 of 1991) are being disposed of as the facts arising therein are common. These appeals have been filed by the defendants. The suit for possession filed by Hakam Singh and others was decreed by the trial Court which decree was affirmed on appeal by the lower Appellate Court. Main judgment is prepared in R.S.A. No. 710 of 1990.

(2.) Narinder Singh was original owner of the suit land. On April 30, 1959, he agreed to sell the suit land to Hakam Singh and others, plaintiffs. Narinder Singh died and his estate was inherited by Sukhchain Singh and Kashmir Singh. On the death of Kashmir Singh, his sons Gursewak Singh, Rachhpal Singh, Mohinder Kaur and Rachhpal Kaur, his sons and daughters inherited his estate. Since Narinder Singh had not executed the sale deed during his life time, Hakam Singh and others filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract against the aforesaid heirs of Narinder Singh. The Suit was decreed. In execution of the decree a sale deed was executed by Gursewak Singh and others in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendants were pleaded to be in permissive possession of the land and denied the title of the plaintiffs that the present suit was filed for possession. The defendants Banta Singh and others contested the suit denying the execution of any agreement by Narinder Singh in favour of the plaintiffs, they were not bound by the decree for specific performance passed or execution of the sale deed by Gursewak Singh and others. They asserted an agreement to sell in their own favour executed on July 14, 1958. They were still ready and willing to perform their part of the aforesaid agreement. They further asserted that on the death of Narinder Singh, there was dispute of his inheritance. Sukhchain Singh had nothing to do with the heirship of Narinder Singh. On the death of Kashmir Singh it was denied for want of knowledge about his heirs. They claim to be in continuous possession of the land under the agreement in their favour. The following issues were framed :-

(3.) All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit was decreed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court as stated above affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.