INDER SINGH Vs. SUCHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUCHA Singh plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract requiring defendants No. 1. and 2, Mohan Singh and Bhagat Singh to execute and get registered sale deed in his favour in accordance with the agreement made by them with the plaintiff on 1.1.1975, and with a consequential relief of injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 not to sell, mortgage or alienate in any manner or form 761/2434 share of 121 kanals 14 marlas of land bearing Khasra Nos. 82/7/2, 8/2,12,13,14, 19, 21, 22,23, 17, 24, 82/18, 84/3,4,13,9,17,24 situated in village Mandiala Tehsil and District Amritsar as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70 to defendant No. 3 or any other person other than the plaintiff and restraining defendant No. 3 to purchase the aforesaid land from defendants No.1 and 2.

(2.) IT has been averred in the plaint that defendants No. 1 and 2, Mohan Singh and Bhagat Singh, agreed to sell 761/2434 share of land described above belonging to them to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 1.1.1975 for a consideration of Rs. 27,348/- . The defendants also received Rs. 6000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 1.1.1975. The sate-deed was agreed to be executed and registered up to 27.1.1975 on payment of balance of sale price. The plaintiff on 27.1.75 reached the office of the Sub Registrar but defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to reach there to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff then served a notice on the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale deed within a week of the receipt of the notice. Time was made the essence of the contract. Defendants No. 1 and 2 did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Defendant No. 3 Indar Singh along with defendants No. 1 and 2 were not ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 Indar Singh took advantage of the situation and wanted to purchase the suit land himself. Defendant No. 3 took away defendants No. 1 and 2 in order to prevent them from executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with an ulterior motive so that he may get the sale deed executed in his own name. Defendant No. 3 had no right to get the sale deed executed from defendants No. 1 and 2 as the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff still sustained. It is then pleaded that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing and was still ready and willing to purchase the land in dispute. As the defendants No. 1 and 2 committed the breach of contract of sale the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 3 Indar Singh had raised few preliminary objections in his written statement. Firstly, that the plaintiff has no locus stand to file the suit. Secondly, that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Thirdly, that the suit is collusive. Fourthly, that the suit is barred under Order 2 and Rule 2 CPC and Section 11 CPC.