SARDAR MOHINDER SINGH Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being-aggrieved, the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) has preferred the present appfeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, thereby partly dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff for specific performance of contract.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

(3.) The Plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of a Contract of sale of land comprising Khasra Nos. 406/305/208/ 134/2/5 measuring 9 biswas, khata khatauni No. 8/16 min situate in Mauza Shamsherpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (here-in-after referred td as the suit land) against the Respondents/Defendants (here-in-after referred to as the Defendants). His case as made out in the plaint is that the Defendant No. 1 was owner in possession of land comprising khata khatauni No. 8/16 min, khasra Nos. 406/305/208/134 measuring 1-3 bigha5"as a whole and sold different portions thereof to different persons in February, 1982 leaving behind 9 biswas which was agreed to be sold to the Plaintiff for consideration in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- by a written agreement for sale. The Plaintiff paid the sale consideration to Defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of the agreement and receipt was also executed on the second page of the agreement for sale and the actual possession of the land agr eed to be sold to the Plaintiff, that is the suit land, was delivered to the Plaintiff prior to the execution of the said' agreement for sale. It was also mutually agreed to between the parties to the agreement that rin case the area possession wherepf was handed-over to the Plaintiff exceeds 9 biswas the Plaintiff would pay the price of the surplus area to the said Defendant at the contractual rates. The Plaintiff had always been willing to perform his part of the contract but Defendant No. 1 had been putting of the execution of the sale deed and registration thereof on false and flimsy pretext. Therefore, the Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice dated 30.8.1983 but the Defendant declined to execute the sale deed on the plea that the sale consideration in fact was Rs. 9,000/- which plea was concocted and false. On being contacted by the Plaintiff several times the Defendant agreed to execute the sale deed on 17.12.1982 but again refused to execute the sale deed on the plea that he wanted to ascertain the actual area of the land in possession of the Plaintiff by demarcation before execution and registration of the sale deed, whereas the Defendant had got the suit land demarcated and the area was found to be 9 biswas only. Thereafter the Defendant illegally and mala fide sold 4 biswas of land out of the suit land in favour of Defendant No. 2 who is his near relation. Defendant No. 2 knew that Defendant No. 1 had already sold 9 biswas of land to the Plaintiff and no other land was available with the Defendant No. 1 for sale. It is further claimed that the Defendant No. 2 in collusion and connivance with Defendant No. 1 is now trying to take forcible possession of the suit land on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in his favour by the Defendant No. 1. Hence, the present suit.