PARTAP SINGH Vs. HARINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT got initiated way back on 10.6.1988 when the then plaintiffs -Harinder Singh, Joginder Singh, Harvinder Singh, Daljit Singh and Harbahajan Singh preferred against Tara Singh, the original owner (defendant No. 1) and Partap Singh (defendant No. 2) subsequent purchaser a suit for possession by way of specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 25.11.1983 Ex.P1 in respect of land measuring 34 kanals and 14 marlas detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint and which suit stood decreed, wherein, the relief for permanent injunction stood declined vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.2000 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar. These findings were upheld by the learned first Appellate Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar through impugned judgment and decree dated 29.8.2000, whereby, two separate appeals of Partap Singh as well as Tara Singh defendants stood dismissed with costs. It is against these consecutive findings, the unsuccessful subsequent purchaser -Partap Singh has preferred the instant regular second appeal before this Court.

(2.) HEARD , learned counsel for the parties. The concise factual situation emancipating from the arguments and the records of the lower Court shows that defendant No. 1 -Tara Singh happens to be the owner of the suit property and it is claimed by the plaintiffs that they entered into a registered agreement to sell Ex.P1 with this defendant, who has agreed to sell the same for a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ - and out of which plaintiffs claim that they have paid Rs. 50,000/ - as earnest money. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that since the land fell into the conglomeration of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act it was agreed upon that the seller would seek prior permission of the authorities and, thereafter, would execute the sale deed and then deliver the actual possession of suit property. Though, it is alleged that thereafter, a sum of Rs. 27,000/ - was paid out of the remaining sale consideration on various occasions by the plaintiffs and Tara Singh even executed a pronote of sum of Rs. 10,000/ - in their favour and remaining amount was received orally. It is alleged further that only a sum of Rs. 1,03,000./ -remained due to be paid by the plaintiffs out of this total sale consideration. It is further accepted by the plaintiffs that earlier they have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -owner from alienating suit land and, thus, prayed that inspite of having received requisite permission from the concerned authority has failed to execute the sale deed as per his obligation and hence suit in question was preferred thereafter, claiming that they were ready and willing to undergo their part of the contract.

(3.) THE stand of the seller defendant No. 1 is that the suit was barred by limitation as well as questioned maintainability of the suit in the light of the previous suit for permanent injunction and has claimed that he has earlier entered into an agreement to sell dated 8.10.1983 Ex.PX with defendant No. 2 - Partap Singh, present appellant for a total consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/ - as prior to this Partap Singh was cultivating the land in question as a lessee by virtue of agreement of mortgage dated 5.8.1983 Ex.DW4/2\Ex.DW5/1and that he had received a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ - from Partap Singh and has termed the agreement to sell Ex.P1 to be under undue influence, coercion and pressure and being not an outcome of voluntariness and free accord. It is claimed by the seller that he had already brought this to the knowledge of the plaintiffs who inspite being aware of it and out of their own personal enmity with Partap Singh had gone ahead with it for obvious reasons.