DHARAM PAL Vs. PREM LATA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 5 -N/XIII of 2009.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and for specific performance of contract/ agreement, dated 17.9.1976. According to the Plaintiff, Bhagat Ram and Karam Chand entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to sell Khasra No. 555 measuring 5 marlas for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/ - on 17.9.1976. The agreement was reduced into writing and was executed by Bhagat Ram and Karam Chand in presence of the witnesses. The substantial amount of consideration, i.e. a sum of Rs. 950/ - was received by the vendors as advance and the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs. 50/ - was to be received by them at the time of registration of sale deed. According to the Plaintiff, in pursuance to the said agreement, vendors, as part performance of the agreement, gave possession of the suit land on the spot to the Plaintiff. The time was not the essence of the contract nor any time was fixed to execute the sale deed. The Plaintiff was living in Delhi and during settlement operation, the settlement authorities entered the name of Plaintiff's father, Shri Ram Lal as 'kabiz' instead of Plaintiff without joining the Plaintiff in those proceedings and without giving him any opportunity to appear in those proceedings. His father died in the year 1984. He visited Nurpur on 2.8.2004 and learnt that the Defendants wanted to further alienate the suit land and have started negotiation for which they had no right, title and interest. According to him, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and is still ready and willing to do so. He asked the Defendants on 2.8.2004 to execute the sale deed in his favour and to receive the balance consideration of a sum of Rs. 50/ -, but they did not do so. The suit was contested by the Defendants. They have denied that the suit land was owned and possessed by the Plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the suit land was owned and possessed by the predecessors -in -interest of the Defendants, namely, Karam Chand and Bhagat Ram and after their death the Defendants succeeded to their estate. The entry in the name of Ram Lal as 'kabiz' was mere paper entry without possession. It was specifically denied that the predecessor -in -interest of the Defendants ever entered into an agreement dated 17.9.1976 for sale of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) THIS appeal was admitted on 20.10.2010 on the following substantial questions of law: