BALVINDER SINGH Vs. HANSA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been reversed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 2. 11. 1973. According to the plaintiff, Hansa Singh, owner of land measuring 55 Kanals 10 Marlas, entered into an agreement to sell for a valuable consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 9,000/- was paid to Hansa Singh as earnest money and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed on or before 12. 12. 1973. Hansa Singh failed to perform his part of the contract. Hansa Singh had appointed Shri Karnail Singh-defendent No. 2 as his Mukhtiar, but this power of attorney was cancelled by Hansa Singh on 2. 11. 1973. Despite the cancellation of the power of attorney Karnail Singh alienated the disputed land in favour of defendants 3 to 6 by means of registered sale deed dated 26. 11. 1973. According to the plaintiff, defendantthe vendees were aware of the earlier agreement and so the same does not effect the plaintiffs possessory rights. Plaintiff further made an averment to the effect that out of land measuring 55 Kanals 10 Marlas area comprised in rectangle No. 67/1 infact is not in his ownership and so sought relief of specific performance in respect of the remaining land measuring 49 Kanals 7 Marlas.

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 3 to 6 filed separate written statement pleading that they have purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- from Karnail Singh, Mukhtiar of Hansa Singh by means of a registered sale deed dated 26. 11. 1973. They further claimed themselves to be bonafide purchasers for value without notice of any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Other pleas regarding collusive nature of the suit and its maintainablity in the present form were raised. In the alternative, defendants prayed that in case the suit is decreed they be held entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and another sum of Rs. 7,000/- as they have dug out a tubewell in the disputed land. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1) Whether the suit is collusive between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 ? OPD. 2) Whether the suit does not He in the present form? OPD. 3) Whether the agreement between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is not valid and binding on the contesting defendants? OPD. 4) Whether defendants 3 to 6 are bonafide purchasers without notice for consideration? OPD. 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance? OPP. 6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief, if so from whom? OPP. 7) Whether the defendants have effected improvements, if so of what amount and to what effect? OPD. 8) Whether there was any agreement between defendants No. 1 and 2, if so its effect? OPD. 9) Relief.