BAJ SINGH Vs. RAVINDERR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 5. A challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated January 15,1979 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the suit filed by plaintiff, Ravinder Singh was decreed and the judgment dated June 1, 1988 whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Plaintiff, Ravinder Singh filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated June 2,1975, executed by Smt. Akko-defend- ant No. 1, in favour of plaintiff, Ravinder Singh and defendant No.6, Surjan Singh whereby the aforesaid land measuring 30 kanals was agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.45,000. Out of 30 kanals of aforesaid land, 22 kanals was agreed to be purchased by plaintiff, Ravinder Singh, and 8 kanals, was agreed to be purchased by Surjan Singh, defendant No. 6. At the time of execution of the agreement Rs. 7,500 was paid by plaintiff, Ravinder Singh and Rs. 1,000 was paid by defendant No.6, Surjan Singh to Shrimati Akko as earnest money. The sale-deed was to be executed on or before December 11, 1975. It was further provided in the agreement that if Surjan Singh did not want to purchase the share of land, then it would be open to Ravinder Singh to purchase the whole of the land on payment of the entire sale price. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that Shrimati Akko instead of selling the land to the plaintiff, had sold the same to defendant No. 2 to 5 namely, Baj Singh, Balbir Singh, Jagtar Singh and Balkar Singh through a registered sale-deed dated December 9,1975. The aforesaid purchasers had purchased the land with full knowledge of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and, as such, could not be treated to be bona fide purchaser. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims that Shrimati Akko and the aforesaid subsequent vendees were bound to transfer the land in his favour on receipt of the balance sale consideration.

(3.) This suit was contested by the defendants. In her written statement, Shrimati Akko admitted the execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and Surjan Singh and receipt of the earnest money. She claimed that the land in dispute along with some other land owned by her father, Hazara Singh, was under mortgage but since Pritam Singh, father of the minor plaintiff, Ravinder Singh, did not agree to pay the proportionate mortgage amount, therefore, the agreement to sell was cancelled and the earnest money was agreed to be returned. However, later on, the plaintiff's father did not accept back the earnest money. Consequently, the land was sold by her to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for consideration Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also took up similar pleas but also claimed that they were bona fide purchasers and without any notice.