ISHAR Vs. SHEO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Ganpat, defendant No. 1 was owner of 28 Kanals 13 Marlas of land and some other land situated in village Pateekra. Vide agreement to sell, Exhibit P.1 dated 25th October, 1967, he agreed to sell 16 Kanals of land comprised in specific Killa numbers, out of that land, to the plaintiffs for Rs. 8000/-. At the time of the execution of the agreement he received Rs. 3200/- in cash and also got adjusted Rs. 1800/- which were due from him to the plaintiffs on the basis of three pronotes, out of which one was for Rs. 200/-, other one for Rs. 500/- and the third one, for Rs. 1100/-. The remaining sale consideration of Rs. 3000/- was to be paid by the plaintiffs to him at the time of the registration of the sale deed which was to be executed by him in January, 1968. Ganpat vendor delivered possession of the land to the plaintiffs after execution of the above agreement. On 14th December, 1967 a registered lease deed, Exhibit P2 was executed between the above parties in respect of whole of the above referred 28 Kanals 13 Marlas of land for a period of 10 years beginning from Kharif 1967 till Rabi 1967. The possession of the remaining land was also delivered to the plaintiffs and thus they became lessees of the above land including the land agreed to be purchased. As consideration for the lease, the plaintiffs had to pay nine maunds of grain, price of which was fixed at Rs. 500/-, to Ganpat every six months. Later on Ganpat sold land measuring 32 Kanals 5 Marlas to defendants Nos. 2 to 6 by means of sale deed Exhibit D.1 dated 2nd December, 1968. That land included the aforementioned land measuring 28 Kanals 13 Marlas. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the instant suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. They also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over 28 Kanals 13 Marlas which was under lease with the plaintiffs. In the alternative they prayed for a decree for the recovery of Rs. 8000/-. In the plaint it was alleged that they had always been ready and were still ready to have the sale deed executed and had asked Ganpat to execute and get registered the sale deed but he put them off by promising that he would do so in due course of time. The subsequent vendees had knowledge of the prior agreement executed by Ganpat in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendants Nos. 7 to 10 were made parties as 9 Marlas of land out of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs was sold by Ganpat to those defendants. It may be mentioned here that specific performance of contract was prayed for in respect of only 15 Kanals 11 Marlas on payment of full agreed price meaning thereby that no relief is claimed against defendants Nos. 7 to 10.

(2.) The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 6. Defendant No. 1 denied the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as receipt of advance money. According to him no debt was due from him to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs never asked him to execute the sale deed and the agreement, if any, stood rescinded when the plaintiffs did not get the sale deed executed in January, 1968. He also denied the execution of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiffs and pleaded that he was in possession of the land and after the sale, he delivered the possession thereof to defendants Nos. 2 to 6.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers of the land for consideration without notice of the alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiffs.