LAWS(P&H)-1995-7-30

GURDEEP SINGH Vs. KULDEEP RAJ

Decided On July 24, 1995
GURDEEP SINGH Appellant
V/S
Kuldeep Raj Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below vide which the suit of the Plaintiff -appellant stands dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the Plaintiff -appellant is that the defendant -respondent Kuldip Raj owned 19 kanal 1 marla of land which was 1/10th share of the total land measuring 190 kanals 10 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Theh Malmoraa detailed in jamabandi for the year 1973 -74. The above referred to Kuldip Raj agreed to sell the above -mentioned land to the plaintiff -appellant for a consideration of Rs. 32,183.70p vide agreement dated 11.7.1978 and he received an advance amount of Rs. 10,500/ - at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. As per terms of the agreement, the sale was to be completed by 15.2.1979 on payment of the balance amount and in case of failure on the part of the plaintiff -appellant, the agreement was to be deemed to have been cancelled and the earnest money was to be forfeited. However, in case of default on the part of Kuldip Raj defendant -respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1), the plaintiff -appellant Gurdeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was entitled to get the sale deed registered through the Court or was to get the double of the amount of the earnest money from respondent No. 1. It was the case of the appellant that he was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Respondent No. 1, however, sold the land in question to defendant -respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 28.9.1978 ad the defendant -respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were threatening to dispossess the appellant by getting the land partitioned without disclosing the factum of the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant for which they have no right or title to dispossess him from the suit land. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement, controverted the allegations of the appellant and inter alia pleaded that they did not know of any agreement between the appellant and respondent No. 1 and nothing regarding the same was either brought to their knowledge or was in their knowledge at any point of time. In the written statement filed by respondent No.1, the possession of the appellant on the suit land was denied and it was stated that the land in dispute was free from any transactions and it was further mentioned that possession has never been of the appellant at any point of time. It was then stated that the joint possession of the share of respondent No.1 was given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who have already got the land partitioned and the warrant of possession has already been issued in their favour. Various other pleas were also taken to defeat the plea of the appellant. Consequently, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: -

(3.) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the land in suit? O.P.P.