MOHAN LAL Vs. RAM KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 21.1.1994 passed in Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1987 recorded by the District Judge, Narnaul, vide which he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff - petitioner by observing that the same stands abated on account of non - impleading of the legal representatives of deceased Raghbir Prasad defendant - respondent.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the contract regarding the land, detailed in the heading of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that Raghbir Prasad (defendant) entered into an agreement with him on 29.9.1982 to sell the plot for Rs. 6000/ -. The said agreement was scribed by his son Lala Ram ans was attested by witnesses. The plaintiff paid Rs. 200/ as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 5800/ -was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale -deed. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the sale -deed but Raghbir Prasad was never ready to execute the same. He also pleaded that he had filed an application before the Sub -Registrar and had brought the balance currency notes, but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale -deed in his favour. He had also served a legal notice upon the defendant but to no effect. Thereafter, he had filed the above -mentioned suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement, pleading therein that he is not in possession of the suit land and about four years ago he had given the same on monthly rent of Rs.20/ -per mensem to one Bishan Dayal for the last four years. He also contended that he had also executed an agreement with him on 29.1.1982, to sell 150 square yards land out of the suit land, for a sum of Rs. 10,500/ -and had received a sum of Rs. 500/ -as earnest money. Bishan Dayal is in possession of the suit land as a tenant. Besides other pleadings, the defendant has submitted that he was forced to enter into agreement with the plaintiff to alienate the remaining land measuring 60 yards only. It was also submitted that a plot owned by Inder Lal adopted son and Smt. Mini widow of Beni Prasad was adjacent to their house. He and his son Ram Kumar were using the same since 15 -20 years. His Nephew Hanuman Prasad and son Ram Kumar had also obtained a water connection in their names and they were using the plot for tethering cattle. Ultimately, his son Ram Kumar had purchased the said property from Inder Lal vide registered sale -deed No. 782 dated 29.7.1982 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -, but the plaintiff, who is a habitual forger, has got prepared a false and forged sale -deed dated 27.9.1982 in favour of Mahabir Prasad son of Bishamber Dayal. Thereafter, he filed an application before the Sub -Registrar, Mohindergarh, for not attesting the aforesaid sale -deed, but the plaintiff got his application dismissed. Later on, the plaintiff in connivance with the police, had got summoned the defendant and his sons in the Police Station, Mohindergarh, on the basis of the false complaint and due to the fear of the police, the alleged agreement had been executed by him in favour of the plaintiff under coercion. The defendant has prayed that the alleged agreement had not been executed by him with his free will and consent and the same cannot be acted upon. He has also pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff is in the habit of preparing false and forged documents. He has also raised preliminary objections with regard to locus standi, maintainability of the suit, etc. and that the suit was filed only to harass him. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: