PIARA SINGH Vs. JAGTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement will dispose of R.F.A. No. 1817 of 1978, R.S.A. No. 1210 of 1982 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 885-CI and 886-CI of 1986.

(2.) The facts as given in R.F.A. No. 1817 of 1978 are that Piara Singh was the owner of shop-cum-flat No. 21, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh. The plaintiffs purchase the said Flat from him for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/- on 22-11-1971. It is alleged that the defendant delivered possession of the ground floor to them on the same day which was let out by them to one Gulshan Rai Sapra. However, the defendant could not give vacant possession of the first and second floors of the building to them and consequently, he agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem to them. They filed an eviction petition against the defendant regarding first and second floors of the building in which the defendant took a plea that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that he was a trespasser in the building. Consequently, they filed a suit for possession of the first and second floors of the building and for recovery of Rs. 14,000/- as damages for use and occupation with effect from 1-7-1973 till 30-6-1976 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per mensem.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant, who, inter alia, pleaded that the property was in fact sold by him for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs but the sale deed was got executed in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-, as they had no money to pay the balance amount. The plaintiffs' father Prem Singh had agreed to pay balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- within a year and for that purpose he executed a document dt. 25-11-1971. It is further averred that their father agreed that if the remaining amount was not paid within the stipulated period, the sale deed would stand cancelled. The defendant further took a plea that the sale consideration had been brought to India by the father of the plaintiffs in contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and, therefore, the sale was void. Some other pleas were also taken but they do not survive in the appeal.