RANJANA GOEL Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant regular second appeal, at the hands of unsuccessful defendant No.3, is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, was partly decreed by the learned trial court and two appeals filed by both the parties were dismissed together, vide common impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in para 2 of its impugned judgment, are that defendant No.1 Nidhi and on behalf of her minor daughter Shreya i.e. defendant No.2 entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs of the land measuring 17 kanals 3 marlas being 1/2 share out of total land measuring 34 kanals 6 marlas comprised in khewat No.332, khatoni No.516, rect. No.30, khasra No.6 (8-0), 7 (8-0), 14 (8-0), 15(8-0), 16 (2-6), total kitas-5 situated at village Dera, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97 on 15.3.2003 for a sale consideration of L 20,51,000/- and if the possession was to be delivered on the western side, otherwise, the sale consideration was L 25,00,000/-. Defendant No.1 received a sum of L 5,00,000/- as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed of her share on or before 27.6.2003. Defendant No.1 undertook to get the permission to sell the share of defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiffs through the court of law and to get the sale deed of the same executed in favour of plaintiffs by 15.12.2003. Defendant No.1 for herself and on behalf of defendant No.2 also agreed to comply with all the conditions of the agreement to sell dated 15.3.2003.

(3.) It was further alleged that a petition under Section 6, 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short), was filed by defendant No.3 against defendant No.1 and in a suit bearing No.71/2003 for declaration and joint possession filed by defendant No.1 against defendant No.3, a compromise was effected between defendants No.1 and 3 to the effect that the share of defendant No.1, which was the subject matter of agreement to sell dated 15.3.2003, fell to the share of defendant No.3 and both defendants No.1 and 3 were liable to execute the sale deed of 8 kanals 12 marlas land i.e. half share of land measuring 17 kanals 3 marlas in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 was liable to execute the sale deed of the remaining 8 kanals 11/12 marlas land of the share of defendant No.2 Shreya in favour of plaintiffs after getting permission from the competent court of law.