JANAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case set up by the petitioners before us is, that the petitioners' predecessors in interest entered into an agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979, wherein the property in question (over which the petitioners' predecessors were tenants) was sought to be purchased by the petitioners' predecessors from Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass. Ram Piari and Bhagwan Dass, however, admittedly did not transfer the ownership of the land in question by executing any registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners' predecessors. The petitioners' predecessors, therefore, filed a civil suit at Karnal. In the aforesaid civil suit filed by the petitioners' predecessors, they claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979.

(2.) THE claim raised by the petitioners' predecessors on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979, was dismissed by the trial Court at Karnal, by a judgement/decree dated 24.1.1983. The trial Court arrived at the conclusion, that the petitioners' predecessors had failed to prove, that the agreement to sell had been executed (by the petitioners' predecessors) in respect of the land, which is subject matter of the present controversy. It is not a matter of dispute, that an appeal was preferred by the petitioners' predecessors against the judgement/decree dated 24.1.1983 before the lower Appellate Court, and yet again (after the dismissal of the same by the lower Appellate Court), before this Court. This Court eventually dismissed RSA No. 716 of 1986 on 16.5.1986. It is, therefore, clear that the claim of the petitioners' predecessors on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979 failed, and as such, the claim of the petitioners' predecessors on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979, became final. The petitioners, therefore, can no longer rely on the agreement to sell dated 7.12.1979, so as to claim any relief.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the ejectment proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the original landlords, part of the aforesaid land was purchased by respondents No. 5 to 9 (herein) on 14.10.1987. Having done so, respondents No. 5 to 9 moved an application before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal, seeking to be impleaded as parties in the ensuing litigation as they had allegedly stepped into the shoes of the previous landlords. The aforesaid application came to be dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal, on 2.3.1989, and the appeal filed against the order dated 2.3.1989 was dismissed by the Collector, Karnal on 5.8.1989.