OM PARKASH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, dated 24.3.2000, affirming the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, L & S at Kullu, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for specific performance.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant hereinafter also referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of contract as against the respondents, who were impleaded as defendants No. 1 to 3. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the land in suit comprised in Khasra No. 1187 as detailed in the plaint was entered in the name of defendant No. 1 as mortgagee in possession. It was further alleged that defendant No 1 proclaimed that he has become the owner of the suit land since the mortgage has not been redeemed and as such, he entered into an agreement dated 3.3.1989 with the plaintiff, vide which he agreed to sell the suit to the plaintiff for a sum of ` 15,000/-. A sum of ` 14,000/- was paid to defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of the sale deed and ` 1000/- were to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was further alleged that as per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed within a period of five years. It was also alleged that the possession of the suit land was given to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to defendants No. 2 and 3, which sale deed was challenged being fictitious and without possession. Hence, the suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned trial Court has framed as many as 11 issues and Issue No. 6 is relevant - whether the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.14000/- as earnest money and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff and the rest of sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration as alleged? THE learned trial Court held that since the plaintiff had failed to prove that a valid agreement was executed in between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 3 was a bonafide purchaser for value and as such, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance. Those findings are affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.