KARAM DASS Vs. SOM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is plaintiffs' appeal whose suit for declaration and possession has been dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) The suit was instituted on 21st Mar., 1963 for the specific performance of an agreement dated 1st Dec., 1957 made by the defendant Som Parkash to execute a gift deed and get it registered in respect of the suit land and in the alternative for a declaration that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession.

(3.) The brief facts are that one Maya Dass was the owner of the suit property. He died issueless and without any widow. The plaintiffs Karam Dass, Biram Dass, Gurbachan Dass and the defendants Som Parkash and Charan Dass are his nephews. Maya Dass became a Udasi Sadhu and at the fag end of his life he adopted defendant Som Parkash as his Chela. The plaintiffs wanted to contest the said adoptbn. However, in order to avoid litigation, Maya Dass agreed to give 60 Kanals of land to the plaintiffs in equal shares out of his land situate at Banga. He further agreed to give 40 Kanals of land to Biram Dass and Gurcharan Dass plaintiffs out of his land situate at villages Kajla and Bala and 12 Kanals of land to Karam Dass plaintiff situate in these two villages. At the time of that agreement, the plaintiffs were not possessed of any money to defray expenses of the stamp and registration of the gift deed. Consequently it was agreed that the gift deed would be executed after thirteen days of the Lohri in the year 1957. Meanwhile Maya Dass died before the gift deed could be executed. After his death, the defendant being his Chela succeeded to the estate left by Maya Dass. He also agreed to execute the gift deed as promised by his Guru Maya Dass and in this behalf executed a formal agreement dt. 1st Dec., 1957 (Ex.P1). It was stipulated therein that the gift deed would be executed after the consolidation proceedings in village Banga were over and the mutation of inheritance in respect of the land in village Bala had been sanctioned Although the consolidation proceedings were over the defendant was reluctant to execute the gift deed. The plaintiffs sent a notice to the defendant in this behalf. The defendant sent a telegram in reply saying that he would execute the gift deed on 2nd Feb., 1963. The plaintiff reached the office of the Sub-Registrar on that day but the defendant did not turn up. Thus, the plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. They prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dt. 1st Dec., 1957 and, in the alternative, for a declaration.