KAMLESH SAINI Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1,4,5 and 6 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 29-3-1985 vide which the plaintiff has been granted decree for the recovery of rs. 20,000/- with costs throughout against defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 with a condition that the decretal amount shall be paid within one year failing which, the property mentioned in agreement Mark A shall be put to sale.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Girdhari Lal had filed the present suit on 4-1-1982 seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement, alleged to have been entered into by Khushi ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/appellants on 22-1-1963 to sell 1/6th share out of land measuring 107 kanals 13 Marias situated in village Bharth, which comes to approximately 18 Kanals and a house marked as ABCD fully detailed in the site plan situated in village Bharth as Khushi ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants had received Rs. 20,000/-from the plaintiff and agreed to return the same in annual instalments of Rs. 1000/-with interest @ 6% p. a. payable w. e. f. the year 1964 with the last instalment amounting to rs. 3000/- payable at the end of December 1981. It was alleged that in the event of default, the plaintiff was entitled to effect the sale of 18 Kanals of land and residential house in his name and that right could be enforced through Court of law, which shall be binding upon the heirs of Khushi Ram as well. It was further alleged that Khushi ram had failed to make payment in terms of the said agreement and had, in fact, not paid even a single instalment. It was further alleged that the cause of action had arisen on last day of December 1981 i. e. 31-12-1981, in terms of the agreement when the last instalment was to be paid but the defendants had failed to pay the same.

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 4 to 6 entered defence by filing written statement in which it was alleged that the suit is not within time and is also not maintainable in the present form. It was alleged that the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 who has been wrongly described to be son of Khushi Ram with an ulterior motive to get the property of the other defendants devolved upon them on the death of Khushi ram as defendant No. 3 has no concern or connection with them being son of Brij Lal. Defendants have denied the agreement alleging it to be false and fabricated.