RAJENDER SINGH Vs. DHIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular first appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and decree of the court of learned District Jude, Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, vide which he dismissed the suit for possession of the land and for recovery of Rs. 1.5 lac filed by the Appellants as against the Respondent.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellants, hereinafter also referred to as the Plaintiffs, filed a suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 1.5 lac, as against the Respondent, hereinafter also referred to as the Defendant. It was alleged by the Plaintiffs that they are absolute owners of the property comprised in Khasra Nos. 573, 581, 582 and 583, as detailed in the plaint, measuring 0 -86 -60 hectares situated at Mauja Addu. It was alleged that the Plaintiffs had inherited this property from their predecessor -in -interest late Shri Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, being his sons, daughters and widow. It was alleged that the suit property consists of land and a single storeyed house built upon Khasra No. 582, which property is in possession of the Defendant. It was further alleged that the Defendant entered into an agreement of sale with respect to the suit property and some other land, in all measuring about 20 bighas, belonging to late predecessor -in -interest of the Plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ - in the year 1978, as per agreement of sale dated 18.1.1978. It was also alleged that the Defendant could not perform his part of the said agreement, which compelled the predecessor -in -interest of the Plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, a compromise was arrived at in between the Defendant and the predecessor -in -interest of the Plaintiffs, whereby the Defendant agreed to make payment of the sale consideration as per the agreement. However, the Defendant failed to pay the balance amount as agreed by him.

(3.) DEFENDANT , in his written statement, took up preliminary objections in regard to maintainability, limitation, valuation etc. On merits, the Defendant pleaded that he is in possession of the land as per the agreement. He also pleaded that he was already given possession in the year 1978, when the previous agreement was executed. He also pleaded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the attorney of the Plaintiff started demanding more money. Defendant after taking possession started residing in the house and also planted apple plants. The Defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the attorney demanded more money and had agreed to pay the amount as per the fresh agreement of sale. The Defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but late Rajinder Singh refused to perform his part of the contract and there are also letters in this regard. Thus, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of possession or mesne profits as claimed by them.