AMRAO SINGH Vs. RUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal by the defendants has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Kapurthala, dated March 7, 1972 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated August 19, 1969. According to the allegations in the plaint, appellant Amrao Singh (hereinafter called the vendor) had entered into the said agreement with the plaintiff to sell agricultural land measuring 70 Kanlas 5 Marlas at the rate of Rs. 4200/- per killa, a sum of Rs. 4000/- had been paid to the appellant as earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement and the balance of the sale price was to be paid to him before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed and got registered on or before April 27, 1970, and in case of default the appellant was liable to return the earnest money together with the amount of Rs. 2000/- by way of damages. It has been further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was always and is still willing and ready to perform his part of the contract, but the vendor did not turn up to execute the sale deed in his favour on the appointed day and instead transferred the suit land in favour of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 vide sale deed Exhibit D.1 dated June 15, 1970. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree for specific performance against all the three appellants and in the alternative a decree in the amount of Rs. 6000/- by way of refund of the earnest money and damages.

(3.) The suit was contested by all the appellants. Appellant No. 1 admitted the execution of the agreement of sale but denied the payment of the earnest money. He further pleaded that he was always willing and ready to complete the sale deed and it was the plaintiff who committed the default in the performance of his part of the contract. He, therefore, claimed that the plaintiff was neither entitled to the return of the earnest money nor to any damages. The other appellants, apart from controverting the allegations of the plaintiff, pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice in pursuance of an agreement of sale entered before the suit and the sale in their favour was not hit by the rule of lis pendens invoked by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-