DAVINDER SINGH Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the Defendant No. 1- Vendor Jagjit Singh and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. the subsequent vendees from Jagjit Singh, against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.10.1988, Exhibit P.1, was decreed.

(2.) One Jagjit Singh-defendant and his brother Mohan Singh entered into an agreement dated 11.1.1988 for sale of their share in favour of the plaintiff Jarnail Singh. The sale deed was to be executed by the two brothers in respect of their share on or before 1.11.1988 and in respect of the remaining share on or before 31.3.1989. It is the case of the plaintiff that though Mohan Singh has executed sale deed in respect of his share in favour of the plaintiff but the defendants have not executed the sale deed. The said defendant rather initially got a suit filed claiming ownership of the property in dispute from his wife and children. The plaintiff moved an application for becoming party in the said suit but the said suit was dismissed on 31.5.1989. Since the defendants were threatening to dispose of the property other than in terms of the agreement dated 11.10.1988, the plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction on 14.3.1989 restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. The said suit was withdrawn on 28.5.1990. Soon thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement, which has been decreed as mentioned above.

(3.) As per the stand of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3-appellants, they are the bona-fide purchasers of the land in dispute for valuable consideration on the basis of agreement dated 24.2.1988 i.e. an agreement prior to the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff. Since defendant no.1 Vendor was not executing the sale deed, a suit for specific performance was filed in respect of agreement dated 24.2.1988, which was decreed on 14.5.1991. It has been found that the decree dated 14.5.1991 is hit by the doctrine of lispendens as the same was passed during the pendency of the suit for specific performance filed by the present plaintiff, of the agreement dated 24.2.1988 and the agreement as well as the decree are collusive. It has been noticed that defendant nos. 2 and 3 are, in fact brothers of defendant no.1.