AMIR BALA Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows : Plaintiff Kala Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract dated 24-2-1986 with respect to agricultural land measuring 66 kanals 15 marlas of land fully detailed in the plaint. Ram Ditta deceased father of defendant No.1 and Mohan Lal defendant No. 2 who had died during the pendency of the suit represented by defendants Nos. 2(a) to 2(e) were owners of agricultural land measuring 66 kanals 1 5 marlas out of which land measuring 55 kanals 7 marlas was Banjar Qadim and land measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas was Nehri. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as tenant during the lifetime of Ram Ditta. It was the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1978, Ram Ditta deceased had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit land and thereafter he remained in possession of the suit land on the basis of said agreement to sell. After the death of Ram Ditta suit land was inherited by his son Pyare Lal and one Mohan Lal. During the pendency of the suit Mohan Lai son of Ram Ditta died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants No. 2 (a) to defendant 2 (e). However, during the lifetime of Mohan Lal deceased defendant No. 1 i. e. Pyare Lal and Mohan Lal deceased executed an agreement to sell the suit land on 24-2-1981 for a sale consideration of Rs. 22.225/- Mohan Lal deceased admitted the receipt of Rs. 5200/- from the plaintiff by their father in his life time. Pyare Lal and Mohan Lal received a sum of Rs. 13,800/- vide bank draft No, PNT 925 112 for Rs. 6900/- and bank draft No. PNT 925 113 for Rs. 6900/-. The receipt was duly recorded in the agreement of sale and Banjar Qadim land was agreed to sell for Rs. 14000/- and Nehri land was agreed to be sold for Rs. 8225/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 13225/- was to be paid by the plaintiff to the vendor at the time of executing the sale deed. A Power of Attorney was executed by defendant No. 1 Pyare Lal as well as deceased Mohan Lal in favour of one Sukha Singh requiring him to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of defendant No. 1 as well as Mohan Lal deceased. However, subsequently, the same was cancelled by Pyare Lal and Mohan Lal with intimation to the Sub-Registrar, Panipat. On coming to know about the cancellation of Power of Attorney, a legal notice was served by the plaintiff on defendant No. 1 Pyare Lal and Mohan Lal deceased on 15-6-1981 calling upon them to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of remaining consideration money. The plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 Mohan Lal deceased had sold the suit land on 5-6-1982 to Swaran Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Dara defendant Nos. 3 to 5 in the suit by way of registered sale deed. The case of the plaintiff was that as they were aware of the agreement of sale they were not bona fide purchasers and thus, the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to specific performance of the agreement on payment of remaining amount.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Pyare Lal and Mohan Lal filed a joint written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff. However, they denied the agreement to sell with their father and even tenancy of the plaintiff was denied. However, the tenancy of the plaintiff over the land measuring 11 kanals 9 marlas was admitted. It was the case of the respondents that the remaining land being Banjar Qadim was not cultivated, therefore, it was deemed to be in possession of the owners. It was asserted that defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were the owners over the land measuring 55 kanals 7 marlas. The execution of the agreement dated 24-2-1981 was also denied. The case of the defendants was that in fact they had entered into an agreement with defendant No. 2 vide agreement dated 27-2-1980 and possession was delivered to defendants Nos. 3 to 5 on its sale. It was the case of the defendants that registration of the sale deed was delayed for a period of one year due to attestation cf the mutation. The defendants further claimed that the plaintiff had played a fraud with the answering defendants. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had approached them at Jalandhar on the plea that he was sent by Tasbir Singh who was his close relative to inform that he has no intention to purchase the land and there was no objection if the land was sold to the plaintiff. The case of the defendants, therefore, was that believing the plaintiff, the answering defendants had executed Power of Attorney in favour of Sukhan and to execute the agreement of sale dated 24-2-1981 and received a sum of Rs. 13,800/- for the land measuring 66 kanals 15 marlas. The receipt of Rs. 5,200/- was denied. The defendants further claimed that an amount of Rs. 5,200/- was paid by them. The defendants further alleged that they had gone to village Urlana Khurd for getting the sale deed registered but the plaintiff being under the influence of liquor told them about the fraud played by him upon the answering defendants and brought to their notice that he had strained relation with Tasbir Singh and he wanted to deprive him from purchasing the suit land. It was on coming to know about the fraud that Power of Attorney was cancelled and sale deed was executed in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 at the instance of Tasbir Singh. The defendants, however, admitted that the plaintiff was in possession of land measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas and that the defendants remained ready and willing to execute the sale deed regarding the above said land in favour of the plaintiff at the rate agreed. The claim of the Kala Singh plaintiff claiming land was denied. The defendants further alleged that they had received the amount of Rs. 19,000/- but the receipt of Rs. 5,200/- was denied. It was the claim of the defendants that they will adjust the amount of Rs. 19,000/- towards the sale consideration for the land measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 had filed separate written statement and claimed that there was no contract with the plaintiff for the sale of the land measuring 55 kanals 7 marlas. The execution of the agreement dated 24-2-1981 was denied and they claimed to be bona fide purchaser.