BHAGWAN DASS Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant/appellant suffered the judgment and decree for possession by way of specific performance with respect to the suit land passed by the learned trial Court and his first appeal No. 71-NL/13 of 2002 was also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 8.7.2004 hence the present Regular Second Appeal, by him which was admitted for hearing by this Court, prima facie, on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the agreement to sell executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent is unlawful If so its effect."

(2.) Though the appellant herein had denied the execution of agreement to sell and alleged fraud on the ground the respondent having obtained his signature on certain documents, manipulated the agreement aforesaid in his favour and he being non-Himachali/ nonagriculturist could not have purchased the land as per the provisions of Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974, but these issues were decided by both the Courts against him. It was also his case that the respondent was a tenant on the demised premises @ Rs. 200/- per month, as such no decree could have been passed for specific performance. Therefore, in appeal filed by the defendant-appellant before the learned District Judge, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the case was remanded back after framing two following additional issues which are as under:-

(3.) The learned trial Court after affording opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence and hearing them returned the findings on both the issues against the defendant.