SARDARI LAL Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff Sh. Sardari Lal has filed the present L. P. A. No. 397 of 1987, which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated May 20, 1987, passed by the learned Single Judge in R. F. A. No. 145 of 1978 vide which the learned Single Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated September 30, 1976 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rajpura, who granted a decree for specific performance of agreement of mortgage suit property in terms of agreement Exhibit PA against the defendants, who were ordered to execute a registered deed of mortgage with possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance amount of Rs. 300.00 on or before November 30, 1976. It was further directed by the trial Court that in case the defendants failed to comply with the aforesaid directions, it will be open for the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 300.00 in the Court for payment to defendants No. 1 and 2 and after doing so the plaintiff could approach the court for getting the usufructuory mortgage deed in terms of Exhibit PA dated August 8, 1971, executed on and behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 and the remaining defendants would join them in the execution of the mortgage deed.

(2.) THE pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner:

(3.) IT is further alleged by the plaintiff that in order to defeat and delay the agreement Exhibits PA and PB, defendant No. 2, Hazura Singh suffered a collusive decree in favour of his wife Smt. Gurdev Kaur, defendant No. 3, with respect to a parcel of land measuring 25 bighas 4 biswas out of the suit land, while Kartar Singh, defendant No. 1 suffered a collusive decree in favour of defendants No. 4 to 7. These decrees were suffered after the issuance of the registered notices by the plaintiff, calling upon defendants No. 1 and 2 to perform their part of the contract as per agreements Exhibits PA and PB. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that defendants No. 1 and 2 also entered into a collusion with defendant No. 8 Shri Amrit Lal, who also filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale of the suit land in his favour. As per the case of plaintiff, all transfers are subject to agreements Exhibits PA and PB and these transferees do not get any right, title or interest over and above the rights which have been conferred upon the plaintiff, vide agreements Exhibit PA and PB. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were requested several times to execute the mortgage deed as per their undertakings on receipt of a balance amount of Rs. 300.00 but to no effect. It is also averred by the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.