GURMAIL KAUR Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) seeking decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.5.1990 in respect of land measuring 17 Bighas 2 Biswas, has been decreed.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed suit claiming decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.5.1990 on the allegation that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite having received Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money against the total consideration of Rs. 1,19,700/-. Upon contest, defendant denied the allegation of the plaintiffs and contended that the agreement in question is a forged and fictitious documents. She also contended that the decree on the basis of which she became the owner of the suit land, has been set aside in Civil suit No. 146 dated 18.5.1985 and therefore, she is not competent to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) IN this second appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant has contended that the judgment of the first appellate Court is not sustainable in law inasmuch as it is a non-speaking judgment. It is contended that the learned Additional District Judge has not dealt with any issue and it cannot be detected from the judgment passed in appeal as to how the learned Additional District Judge has dealt with the issues involved in the case. It is contended that the judgment of the Additional District Judge deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. Against this, it is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs that the first appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree is not required to give a detailed judgment.