SURJEET Vs. OMBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court whereby on appeal by the plaintiff, judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract, decreed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that one Surjeet (appellant No. 1 herein) was the owner of land measuring 51 Kanals. He executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff on 30. 8. 1988. At the time of execution of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 53,000.00 was paid as earnest money. It is the case of the plaintiff that on or around 6. 11. 1988, he approached defendant Surjeet to get the sale deed executed and registered but on one pretext to the other, the matter was postponed. Plaintiff averred that he got suspicious of the intention of defendant Surjeet and in order to safeguard his interest, he got notice published in a local newspaper on 13. 11. 1988 informing the public at large about sale in his favour. He averred that hand-bills in this regard were also circulated and posted at conspicious places in the village and also near the Offices of the Sub-registrar, Faridabad. Plaintiff further averred that defendant No. 2 Girraj Singh, despite full notice of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff, purchased land measuring 23 Kanals 15 Marias out of the suit land vide sale deed dated 13. 12. 1988 registered on 13. 1. 1989.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed material issues after the parties had been given opportunity to lead evidence, trial court though found that Surjeet had entered into agreement of sale on 30. 8. 1988 and received Rs. 53,000.00 as earnest money, yet dismissed the suit by saying that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Trial Court also found that agreement dated 7. 4. 1988 set up by defendant No. 2 being prior in time to agreement dated 30. 8. 1988 with the plaintiff and sale deed having been executed on the basis of that agreement, defendant No. 2 is bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. However, on appeal by plaintiff, judgment and decree of trial Court has been set aside and suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement, decreed. The first Appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the trial Court in regard to execution of agreement of sale dated 30. 8. 1988 by Surjeet in favour of plaintiff and also receipt of Rs. 53,000.00 as earnest money. As regards the contention of the defendants that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, the first Appellate Court has highlighted many suspicious circumstances showing that they are not bona fide purchasers/lessees. Having found the material issues in favour of the plaintiff, the first Appellate Court decreed the suit. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants.