RANJIT SINGH Vs. KAKA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by a purchaser who purchased the property during the pendency of the-regular first appeal from the vendor (hereinafter referred to as the purchaser vendor) in suit -for specific performance filed by the vendee-respondents which was dismissed by the trial, court but in appeal the judgment was reversed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The facts shortly stated are as under:2. Plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the vendees) filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30. 4. 1968 (Ex. P. 1) alleging that defendant Gurbachan Singh agreed to sell his land measuring 80 Kanals, the details of which are given in the head-note of the plaint to the plaintiff-appellant for a sum of Rs. 23,000/- Rs. 10,000/- were received by Gurcharan Singh vendor as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 15. 6. 1969 and the balance amount of Rs. 13,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It. was stipulated in the agreement Ex-P-1 that in case the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of the contract then they would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and if the vendor Gurcharan Singh failed to perform his part of the contract then he would be liable to return the sum of Rs. 10,000/-which was received by him as earnest money along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for not executing the agreement. It was averred in the plaint that Plaintiffs were in possession of 3/4th share of the suit land as tenant Gair Marusi even before the execution of the agreement Ex-P. 1. Vendor did not execute the sale deed. Plaintiffs, sent a notice through post calling upon the vendor to execute the sale deed.

(2.) VENDOR Gurcharan Singh executed two gift deeds dated 20. 7. 1970 and 26. 8. 1970 in favour of Gurdev Kaur wife of his brother Gurbachan Singh comprising land which included the land in dispute. The present suit for specific performance was filed on 27. 8. 1970. Gurdev Kaur had not been impleaded as respondent in the suit. In the written statement filed by the vendor Gurcharan Singh objection was taken that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was bad for non-joinder of the parties as they have not impleaded Gurdev Kaur wife of Gurcharan Singh; vendor pleaded his denial with respect to the execution of the agreement as alleged by the Plaintiffs. 4. On the pleadings pf the parties, the trial Court framed the following four issues:1. Whether the defendant executed agreement dated 30. 4. 1968 for consideration ?, 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Gurdev Kaur ?

(3.) RELIEF . Because of the objections taken in the written statement regarding the non impleading of Gurdev Kaur as respondent, on an application filed by the plaintiffs, plaint was allowed to be amended by the Court on 3. 12. 1970 permitting the plaintiffs to implead Gurdev Kaur as a respondent. An additional issue was also framed on 30. 12. 1970, which is to the following effect ? "3-A what is the effect of the gift in favour of Gurdev Kaur ? " Under issue No. 1 which is the only material issue in the case, the trial Court held that plaintiffs had failed to prove the 'due execution of the agreement Ex-P-1 for consideration by Gurcharan Singh Vendor. Issue No. 2 was rendered in fructuous as later on Gurdev Kaur was impleaded as dependent No. 2 in the amended plaint. Under Issue No. 3, the trial Court found that this too has become in fructuous in view of the findings recorded on issue No. 1. It was held that if issue No. 1 is proved then the defendant failed to prove his part of the contract. Under additional issue No. 3-A, it was conceded by the counsel appearing for th3e defendants that in case it is proved that defendant vendor Gurcharan Singh executed the agreement Ex. P-1 for consideration of Rs. 10,000/- then Gurdev Kaur was bound to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. In view of the findings recorded under Issue No. 1 by the trial Court, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed, dissatisfied with the same, Plaintiffs filed regular first appeal in this Court.