AJMER SINGH Vs. DERA BABA LAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT for specific performance of an agreement to lease dated 27.4.1965 and for permanent injunction filed by plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed by learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Patiala 'B' vide judgment dated March 31, 1980. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was partly accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 21.9.1983, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in so far as it related to dismissal of suit for permanent injunction was set aside and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land otherwise than in due course of law was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. However, judgment and decree of the learned trial Court regarding dismissal of suit for specific performance was upheld. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the present second appeal in this Court so as to seek relief of specific performance of the agreement in question.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs-appellants as set up by them in the plaint was that Mahant Chetan Dass, Mohtmim of Dera Baba Lal Dass, leased out 149 bighas 7 biswas of land out of the suit land in their favour on 28.5.1954 for a period of 18 years at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year. Later on, the land in dispute was leased out by Dera Baba Lal Dass on 27.4.1965 in their favour for a period of 99 years for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiffs had paid Rs. 1,000/- on 27.4.1965, whereas a sum of Rs. 3,000/- had already been paid in two instalments of Rs. 1,500/- each on 19.1.1963 and 19.2.1963. Formal lease deed for 99 years was agreed to be executed one month before the termination of the earlier lease of 18 years. However, the lease deed was never executed. Rather, on 10.11.1968 Mahant Chetan Dass executed a lease deed for 99 years in favour of defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for 99 years regarding the same very land. The said lease deed dated 10.11.1968 was a sham transaction and executed with the notice of the earlier lease in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not bound by the same and entitled for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.4.1965, besides relief of injunction.

(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 2 to 5 also opposed the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the land in dispute was given to them on lease by defendant No. 1 vide registered lease deed dated 13.11.1968 and the period of lease was to start after the expiry of 18 years' lease in favour of the plaintiffs. The possession of the land was delivered to them on 28.5.1972 and they started tilling the land. On 2.6.1972, when they were away, the plaintiffs took forcible possession of the land in dispute for which they had no right.