BALWANT SINGH Vs. BUTA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgement, shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007, filed by Balwant Singh, appellant, titled as 'Balwant Singh v. Buta Ram and others', and R.S.A No. 2761 of 2007, filed by Shingara Ram titled as 'Shingara Ram v. Boota Ram others', against the judgement and decree dated 03.03.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, for specific performance, and the judgement and decree, dated 31.01.2007, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

(2.) ON 14.09.1981, Shingara Ram, and Sardari Lal (deceased), executed an agreement to sell, in respect of the land, in dispute, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-. At that time, a sum of Rs. 36,000/-, as earnest money, was received, by them. The disputed property had been purchased by the vendors, from the Rehabilitation Department, on payment of instalments. The plaintiff/respondent, was required to pay the balance instalments, to the Rehabilitation Department. It was further agreed, between the parties, that as soon as, the vendors, were held entitled, to sell the land, they would get the sale deed executed, and registered, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The possession of the disputed land, was delivered, to the plaintiff, as part performance of the agreement to sell. It was further stated that the plaintiff/respondent, got constructed a farm house, and installed two tubewells, in the disputed land. According to the plaintiff/respondent, he paid the amount of instalments, towards the price of the land, in dispute, to the Rehabilitation Department, and, as such, performed his part of the contract, dated 14.09.1981. The sale deed, in favour of the defendants (vendors), was executed, on 28.01.1994, by the Rehabilitation Department. It was further stated that the plaintiff/respondent, had ever been ready, and willing to perform his own part of the contract, but the defendants, breached the terms and conditions thereof. On the final refusal of the defendants, to get the sale deed executed and registered, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, the suit for specific performance, and permanent injunction, was filed.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 3, who was impleaded, during the pendency of the suit, being a subsequent vendee, having purchased the land, in dispute, from Shingara Ram etc., stated that, he was the bonafide purchaser, for valuable consideration, and without any notice, of the land, in dispute, in the sum of Rs. 21,84,500/-, vide registered sale deed dated 18.12.2003.