BALDEV SINGH Vs. JAIMAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1994, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, reversed the findings recorded by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Guhla, on various issues and set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1994 passed by the Court of first instance whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement by ordering cancellation of sale deed, was decreed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.

(3.) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.04.1988 (Ex.P/1) in respect of agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of village Rasoolpur, Tehsil Guhla. As per plaintiff, defendant No.5-Hidayat purchased the suit land from State of Haryana and mutation was sanctioned in his favour. On 05.04.1988, defendant No.5- Hidayat entered into agreement of sale of the suit land with the plaintiff for a consideration amount of Rs.28,500/-. A sum of Rs.19,800/- was received by defendant No.5-Hidayat as earnest money and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar. Defendant No.5-Hidayat agreed to get the mutation sanctioned/passed in favour of the plaintiff after clearing all encumbrances in respect of the suit land and also agreed to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement of sale Ex.P/1. As per plaintiff, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, immediately after the agreement, defendant No.5-Hidayat started negotiating with some other persons in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff filed separate civil suit for permanent injunction titled 'Baldev Singh vs. Hidayat and others' in the month of July, 1990 in the Court of Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Kaithal, for restraining defendant No.5-Hidayat not to alienate the suit land to any other person except the plaintiff. The intending purchasers were arrayed as defendants No.1 to 4 in the said suit.