PARAMJIT SINGH MANN Vs. MAHINDER PAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 7.2.2013 (Annexure P -6), passed by the trial Court whereby the application filed by the plaintiff -petitioner to prove two agreements to sell dated 15.10.2003 and 5.2.2004 by way of secondary evidence was declined.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of two agreements to sell dated 15.10.2003 and 5.2.2004 executed by defendant -respondent No. 1 in respect of 15 kanals 5 marlas of the land being one half share of the total land measuring 30 kanals 10 marlas. This land was owned by Sh. Karam Chand, father of defendant -respondent No. 1. Sh. Karam Chand died on 8.4.2002 and his estate devolved upon respondent No. 1 and Raj Rani, his sister -in -law (wife of deceased brother of respondent No. 1) on the basis of Will dated 5.3.2002. The mutation of the estate of Sh. Karam Chand was entered on 17.9.2003 but it had not been sanctioned at the time when agreement to sell dated 15.10.2003 was executed. The agreement was executed for a consideration of Rs. 6,48,125/ - and the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed for 5.2.2004 and the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 2,48,125/ - was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Since the mutation was not yet sanctioned the respondent No. 1 executed another agreement to sell dated 5.2.2004 and received the balance amount of Rs. 2,48,125/ - from the plaintiff -petitioner.

(3.) IT was further stated that the petitioner's possession was threatened by defendant -respondents No. 2 to 4 and it was revealed that respondent No. 1 has executed the sale deed in respect of the same land measuring 15 kanals 5 marlas in favour of defendant -respondents No. 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 8.9.2004 and defendant -respondent No. 2 further sold the land measuring 6 kanals 2 marlas out of the total land measuring 15 kanals 5 marlas to defendant respondent No. 4 vide sale deed dated 25.02.2005. The sale deeds were attacked as sham and bogus transactions and the result of fraud played upon the plaintiff -petitioner and thus, are not binding upon him. The mutations No. 929 and 951 on the basis of these sale deed were also sanctioned. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had attached photostat copies of both the agreements to sell along with the plaint in the suit instituted by him in the year 2008.