HAKAM SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff Shri Hakam Singh has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.10.1998 passed by the Court of District Judge, Sangrur who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 3.5.1996, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed.

(2.) The case set-up by the plaintiff was that he entered into an agreement with Gurdev Singh defendant No. 1 on 20.12.1990 and agreed to purchase the land mentioned in the agreement. Defendant No. 1 committed the breach of the agreement and he executed another agreement to sell dated 15.2.1994 in favour of defendant No. 2 to 5 and the sale deed dated 2.5.1994 was executed in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 15.2.1994. According to the plaintiff the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of his co-defendants is illegal, null and void and does not affect the rights of the plaintiff who is entitled to decree for possession by way of specific performance.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. They stated that the plaintiff had forged and fabricated the document and it was without consideration. Defendant No. 1 had alienated the land measuring 7 bighas vide sale deed dated 2.5.1994, for a consideration of Rs. 1,89,000/- in favour of Shamsher Singh and Sukhwinder Singh Sons of Shri Surjit Singh. These defendants have denied the agreement dated 20.12.1990 propounded by the plaintiff and also denied that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was ever paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 at the time of the execution of the agreement. It was the further case of the defendants that plaintiff and his father used to cultivate the land of defendant No. 1 on chakota and stamp paper was purchased from Barnala for scribing the chakotanama and defendant No. 1 was asked to thumb mark the same as well as in the register of the stamp vendor and it was kept blank. The said stamp paper was retained by the plaintiff and his father. The defendants also stated that the sale deed dated 2.5.1994 was without consideration and that the same was executed in violation of the injunction order.