RAM KUMAR Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2012 passed by the trial court decreeing suit of the appellant-plaintiff was accepted, judgment and decree impugned were set aside and suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. The appellant has staked his claim for specific performance of contract dated 7.6.2005 against respondent No. 1 on the premise that respondent No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land measuring 5 kanal 4 marlas, situated in village Jahajgarh, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar for a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- on 7.6.2005 and sale deed was agreed to be executed on 7.6.2006. Respondent No. 1 illegally executed sale deed of suit land in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 on 19.12.2005 and the same is illegal, null, void and not binding upon rights of the appellant. The appellant always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but respondent No. 1 violated the same by executing illegal sale deed dated 19.12.2005. He sought declaration that the aforesaid sale deed is illegal, null, void and without consideration and liable to be set aside. Respondent No. 1 filed the written statement and raised preliminary objections pertaining to locus standi to file the suit; maintainability of the suit and suit being filed just to harass. On merits, he pleaded that he had not agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,56,000/- on 7.6.2005. In fact, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from plaintiff at the time of agreement and he had paid the same with interest. Plaintiff told him that he will return the agreement but he did not return the same. Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed their separate written statement and raised preliminary objections qua plaintiff being estopped by his own act and conduct to file the suit; he has not come to the court with clean hands; he has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit and suit is not maintainable in the present form. They denied having knowledge about agreement between plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has not registered the agreement to sell in the record of right. They have paid Rs. 1,60,000/- as sale consideration for purchasing the suit land vide sale deed dated 19.12.2005 and they are in possession of the suit land being bona fide purchasers. Plaintiff had filed the suit in connivance with defendant No. 1. All other material averments of the plaint have been denied with a prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs.

(2.) The trial court framed following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.6.2005 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff on the grounds as alleged? OPP 2. whether the sale deed dated 19.12.2005 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 is illegal, null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPD

(3.) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD