RAJ KUMAR BAGHEL SINGH Vs. DEVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of Sub Judge, 3rd Class, Patiala, dated 25.11.1991 refusing to permit defendants No. 2 and 4 to amend the written statement.

(2.) Ist respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit land and also for a declaration that the instrument of partition issued by Additional Collector 1st Grade dated 4.12.1981 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The suit is being contested by the defendant. The suit was filed on 31.7.1985. While defendants 2 and 4 filed an application on 11.11.1991 for amendment of the written statement taking the plea that they agreed to purchase the property from 1st defendant under an agreement of sale dated 22.10.1975 and that they have been put in possession of the suit property in part performance of the contract and, therefore, their possession has been protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 30.7.1980 is illegal, null and void. That application filed by defendants 2 and 4 for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the trial Court. Hence 2nd defendant filed this revision petition.

(3.) Though the agreement of sale was said to have been executed by 1st defendant in favour of the petitioner and his daughter, namely 4th defendant, on 22.10.1975, admittedly no suit for specific performance for the agreement of sale has been filed. It is also an admitted fact that 1st defendant sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 30.7.1980. The very fact that the property has been sold under a registered sale deed in July, 1980, clearly shows that 1st defendant refused to honour the agreement of sale dated 22.10.1975. There can not be any dispute about the fact that the registration of the sale deed amounts to notice to the agreement holder in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. But the petitioner has not filed any suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale within three years from the date of refusal. It is well settled that an agreement of sale does not confer any title vide Probodh Kumar Dass and Ors. v. Dantmara Tea Co. Limited and Ors., A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 1. Mere possession under the agreement of sale does not clothe the agreement-holder with any title. If the vendor wants to dispossess him, the agreement-holder can rely upon the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. But the same cannot be used against a subsequent purchaser when after the time of enforce the agreement of sale lapsed. The right of the agreement-holder became extinguished because of his omission to file any suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. In this view of the matter, the amendment certainly causes prejudice to the plaintiff and that the claim of the petitioner to have the agreement of sale specifically enforced as barred by time. In this view of the matter I do not find any ground warranting interference with the order of the trial Court impugned in this revision. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.