RAVINDER SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.2.1996, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, was decreed.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 executed an agreement for sale of his share of the land for a total consideration of Rs. 13,750/ - A sum of Rs. 10,000/ -was received by defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of sale and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,750/ -was to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed which was contemplated to be executed on 20.9.1996. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and was in possession of the balance sale consideration. Defendant No. l did not honour the terms of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff also remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar with sale consideration, but defendant No. 1 in breach of the terms of the sale deed executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2. The said sale deed is dated 3.5.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -. Thus, the plaintiff sought a decree for possession on the basis of prior agreement of sale.

(3.) THE Courts have considered the fact that defendant No. 1 had not appeared as a witness and that plea of the appellant that he is a bona -fide purchaser for value and consideration was not tenable. It may be noticed that the appellant is resident of the same village and the first Appellate Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gobind Das and Anr. v. : AIR1972SC1520 , wherein it has been held that the knowledge of agreement of sale executed in favour of a party is known to the inhabitants of a small village and presumption can be raised in this regard. Still further, it has been found that there is a recital in the sale deed in respect of delivery of possession but as a matter of fact, Karnail Singh was not in exclusive possession of the property in question. Such finding has been returned on the basis of judgment and decree Exhibit P. 17.