SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. SATYABIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present regular second appeal has been preferred by Smt. Shakuntla Devi against the judgment and decree dtd. 25/11/2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani and against judgment and decree dtd. 14/11/2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani.

(2.) As per the brief facts of the present case, appellant Smt. Shakuntla Devi being a plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on 10/9/2002 on the basis of the agreement to sell dtd. 8/8/1992 (Ex. P-1). As per appellant-plaintiff she entered into an agreement to sell to purchase land measuring 6 marlas owned by Satyabir/respondent-defendant No. 1 through his General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder-Sant Lal-Respondent/defendant No. 2 for the sale consideration of Rs.85,000.00 which was received by the GPA namely Sant Lal and vacant possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. There was no specific date to execute the sale deed but the respondents-defendants No. 1 and 2 were duty bound to execute these registered sale deeds in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. It is further alleged that appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking relief of injunction and the appellant-plaintiff is still ready and willing to execute and register the sale deed of disputed property on her own expenses. It is further stated that the sale deed dtd. 3/12/1997 (Ex. D-4) has been executed by respondent-defendant No. 2 in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi-respondent/defendant No. 3 in order to grab money from the plaintiff and harass her and the said sale deed dtd. 3/12/1997 is not binding on the right of the plaintiff. The respondents-defendants appeared before the trial court. Respondent-defendant No. 2 Sant Lal (GPA) did not prefer to contest the suit and he was proceeded against ex-parte on 25/1/2011. Respondent/defendant No. 1 have taken a specific stand that he is the owner in possession of the disputed property and he was having good relation with respondent-defendant No. 2 and executed GPA in his favour just to maintain the property and no right to alienate the property was ever given. Even the sale deed executed by respondent-defendant No. 2 (GPA) in favour of Smt. Krishan Devi, respondent-defendant No. 3 is not binding on the rights of respondent-defendant No. 1. Respondent-defendant No. 1 has also taken a specific stand about these two documents i.e. agreement to sell dtd. 8/8/1992 and sale deed dtd. 3/12/1997 are illegal and void and the property in dispute is a residential house and not a plot as it has been wrongly mentioned as 'plot' in agreement to sell dtd. 8/8/1992. Respondent-defendant No. 3 have contested the present suit and stated that she is owner in possession of the suit property/residential house on the basis of registered sale deed No. 3374 dtd. 3/12/1997 and have further alleged that the agreement to sell dtd. 8/8/1992 is based on fraud and the appellant-plaintiff has got no right, title or concern whatsoever with the disputed property.

(3.) After taking into consideration the contentions raised by the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the defendant No. 2 Sant Lal son of Kishan Chand was GPA holder of defendant No. 1 Satyavir in respect of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether on the basis of the said GPA defendant No. 1 was empowered to execute the agreement to sell dtd. 8/8/1992 in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the registered sale deed dtd. 3/12/1997 executed by defendant No. 2 Sant Lal in favour of defendant No. 3 after the execution of agreement to sell dtd. 8/8/1992 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and thus, is liable to be set aside and cancelled? OPP