BHAJAN KAUR Vs. KANWAR DEVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Patiala, who rejected the objections filed by the petitioners and held that the respondent-decree holder was entitled to recover actual physical possession pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed in his favour.

(2.) The matrix of the case is as under :- Capt. Chuni Lal was owner of land measuring 96 Bighas 6 Biswa. He entered into an agreement to sell this land with the respondent for Rs. 26,000/- on September 27, 1966 through his daughter and attorney Neena Ahuja. Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed which was to be executed on or before February 28, 1967. The vendor did not execute the sale deed even by the extended date. The vendor entered into an agreement to sell, with the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtors) on July 21, 1967 with regard to the suit land. The sale was to be executed on or before January 1, 1968.

(3.) The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell, dated September 27, 1966 against the vendor Capt. Chuni Lal. The judgment-debtors were also made party defendants in the suit. The suit for specific performance was decreed and it was held that the decree-holder would be entitled to actual physical possession of the disputed land in execution of the decree for specific performance. On appeal, the first appellate Court reversed this finding and that the decree-holder would not be entitled to actual physical possession of the suit land in execution of the decree for specific performance. The decree-holder will only be entitled to a simple decree of specific performance. The judgment-debtors still aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court came to this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 821 of 1981 which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated March 13, 1984. The High Court negatived their plea that the agreement to sell executed in their favour was in recognition of their pre-existing right to pre-empt the land in suit. It was also held that they were not bona fide purchasers for value and consideration and that the sale in their favour was hit by the Rule of lis pendens. However, in the concluding paragraph, it was observed that the question whether the decree-holder is entitled to actual physical possession or not, will be decided by the executing Court. On the basis of these observations made in the judgment by this Court, the judgment-debtors filed objections in the executing Court, inter alia, on the ground that they were in possession as tenants before they entered into an agreement to sell with the landowner on July 21, 1967 and that the decree-holder was not entitled to actual physical possession from them.