PARDEEP KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. DHANPATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 24.12.2013. This is how, defendants No. 2, 3 & 5 to 7 are before this court, in these regular second appeals. RSA No. 2679 of 2014 is preferred by defendants No. 3 & 5 to 7. Whereas, RSA No. 6269 of 2014 is preferred by defendant No. 2. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) IN a suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. Rameshwar son of Jia Lal, he prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 23.08.2004, qua a land measuring 58 kanals 7 marlas i.e. the suit property. And also that the sale deed bearing No. 11377, dated 16.02.2005, executed by defendant No. 1, in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4, qua the suit land, was null and void. A decree for injunction was also claimed, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner. It was averred that defendant No. 1 i.e. Ved Singh, happened to be the owner of the suit property, situated within the revenue estate of Village Asadpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat and an agreement to sell dated 23.08.2004, was executed by him qua the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 44,46,250/ -. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - were purported to have been advanced to defendant No. 1, by way of earnest money. Rs. 1,00,000/ - were paid on 23.08.2004 at the time of execution of the agreement and the rest Rs. 4,00,000/ -, were paid subsequently but on the same day i.e. 23.08.2004. Sale deed was to be executed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 31.05.2005, after receiving the balance sale consideration. Further, on 20.12.2004, defendant No. 1 demanded another sum of Rs. 21,88,125/ - from the plaintiff and accordingly, a cheque No. 0093951, dated 20.12.2004, for a sum of Rs. 21,88,125/ -, in the name of defendant No. 1, was drawn on Bank of India, Rai. Accordingly, requisite details in this regard were recorded at the back page of the agreement and even names of the witnesses were also typed, however, defendant No. 1 refused to accept the cheque and affix his thumb impression upon the agreement in this regard. It was maintained that plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as he requested to defendant No. 1 on several occasions to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration, but to no avail. On 31.03.2005, plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 had in fact sold the suit property to defendants No. 2 to 4, vide a registered sale deed dated 16.02.2005. As defendants No. 2 to 4 were aware, that defendant No. 1 had already executed an agreement dated 23.08.2004, in favour of the plaintiff, the sale deed dated 16.02.2005 was illegal, inoperative and a void ab initio. Since, despite repeated requests, defendants refused to acknowledge the claim of the plaintiff, thus, the suit.

(3.) IN a separate written statement filed by defendants No. 2 to 4, it was pleaded, inter alia, that plaintiff had no locus to institute the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.08.2004, as the same was executed much after the execution of the agreement dated 01.07.2004, executed in their favour, by defendant No. 1, and pursuant whereto even the sale deed was executed on 16.02.2005. In fact, defendant No. 1 never executed an agreement dated 23.08.2004, in favour of the plaintiff.