SOHAN SINGH Vs. FAUJA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2-12-1978 of learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Batala vide which suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of an agreement dated 22-4-1974 executed by defendant No. 1 Smt. Puran Kaur of land measuring 22 Kanals 17 Marias in favour of the plaintiff Fauja Singh, was decreed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint is that defendant No. 1 Smt. Puran Kaur was the owner of land measuring 22 Kanals 17 Marias as described in the heading of the plaint; Puran Kaur defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell this land to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 22-4-74 for Rs. 27,000/- and she received Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money at the time of the agreement. Sale-deed was to be executed by 14th of Harh Registration expenses, according to the agreement, were to be borne out by the plaintiff. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had always been ready and was still willing to get the sale-deed executed from defendant No. 1; the suit land, was said to be in possession of defendants Nos. 2 to 8 who have been impleaded as parties. The plaintiff has challenged the alleged decree on the basis of compromise between defendants Nos. 2 to 8 and defendant No. 1 regarding the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 8 as illegal, collusives, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 9 who allegedly acted as Mukhtiar of defendant No. 1 is not admitted as correct. Defendant No. 1 is relative of defendants Nos. 1 to 8 and so far as the plaintiff knows defendant No. 1 did not appoint him her Mukhtiar with her free consent and has ultimately stated that they are not bound by any alleged consent decree passed at their back.

(3.) IT was denied by defendants Nos. 2 to 8 that there was any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and in the alternative they challenged the agreement as collusive being executed during the pendency of a suit filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 8 against defendant No. 1. It was further contended in the written statement that decree in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 8 was binding on the plaintiff also.