NIRMAL SINGH Vs. GEJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated the facts are that land measuring 13 Kanals 19 Marlas, 1/3rd share of 41 Kanals 17 Marlas, situated in the area of village Mirpur Mari as described fully in the head-note of the plaint was owned and possessed by defendant No. 1 Gejo who entered into an agreement to sell the same to Bakhshi Ram Plaintiff-respondent vide, agreement dated 1- 11l974 at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per killa. The saledeed, according to the agreement, had to be executed on or before 15 Hat, 2032 corresponding to 28-6-1975 A. D. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid in cash to Gejo as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Stamp and registration expenses were to be borne out by the plaintiff Bakshi Ram. It was then agreed that if the plaintiff committed the breach of the contract then the earnest money was to be forfeited and if the breach of agreement was committed by Gejo defendant No. 1 then she would have to pay back the earnest money along with ascertained damages named in the deed of agreement. Both the parties were for specific performance it either of the party was given the right to wove the Civil Court at fault in fulfilling the terms of the agreement. All the terms were incorporated in the terms of agreement duly signed and thumb-marked by the parties.

(2.) It is averred in the plaint that defendant No. 1 Gejo played into the hands of defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and out of greed, she sold the land under agreement to them vide sale deed dated 6l-1975. The subsequent vendees, according to the plaintiff, were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The vendees were quite aware of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and they were definitely told by the plaintiff and the others and the witnesses of the deed of agreement not to buy the litigation as the very land was to be purchased by the plaintiff vide agreement dated 1-11-1974 as stated above and the defendant No. 1 could not validly make a sale of this very land in their favour. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are real brothers. The news of this agreement in favour of the plaintiff had spread like a wild fire in the small village and the defendants and other male and female members came to know of the same.

(3.) It is then averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was and would always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and it was the defendant No. 1 who had committed breach of the contract by selling this very land in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on 6-1-1975, before the date fixed in the agreement. The land was under mortgage and mortgage money was kept in trust to be paid later to the mortgagees, -Defendant No. 1 has resiled from the agreement and committed breach of the contract. As such, the plaintiff has been compelled to file this suit for specific performance.