GURMIT SINGH Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three regular second appeals being R.S.A. No.1027,2118 and 1722 of 2005, as all the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of a common suit filed by the plaintiff. Whereas R.S.A. No.1027 and 2118 of 2005 have been filed by defendants No.2 to 4, RSA No.1722 has been filed by legal representatives of defendants No.1. A suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs with regard to an agreement dated December 5,1991 executed by Kartara,defendant, in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff pleaded that through the aforesaid agreement defendant, Kartara had agreed to sell land measuring49 kanals 12 marlas for an amount of Rs.15,500/-. The earnest money of Rs.25,000/- had been paid at the time of execution of the agreement. Sale deed was to be executed on or before January 28,1996. Claiming that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant had not executed the sale deed, the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff. During the course of the aforesaid suit, defendants No.2 to 4 purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated September 19,1996. Consequently, the plaintiffs impleaded the aforesaid defendants as party to the suit.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Separate written statements were filed by defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No.1 claimed that he had never executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff nor had received any earnest money. He claimed that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was forged and fabricated. He also claimed that the plaintiff along with one Piara Thekedar had illegally cut and removed the trees from the suit land and,therefore, the defendant had filed a suit for recovery. The suit in question had been filed by the plaintiff as a counter blast. It was also alleged that the plaintiff might have obtained thumb impression on the blank papers.

(3.) Defendants No.2 to 4 in their separate written statement took up identical pleas as were taken by defendant No.1 and additionally claimed that they had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated September 19,1996 for an amount of Rs.2,07,000/- and were bonafide purchasers for consideration without any notice of any earlier agreement in favour of the plaintiff.