BALA RAM Vs. DEVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in civil appeal No.68 of 2001 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu in civil suit No.58 of 1996 is affirmed, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) PROFORMA respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No.1') allegedly executed an agreement Ex.PW-1/A to sell out the suit land entered in khata/ khatauni No.249/629, Khasra No.3627 to the extent of 2/5th share, i.e. 17 biswas of total land measuring 2-3 bighas, Khata/Khatauni No.252/634, Khasra No.3628 to the extent of 1/5th share i.e. five Biswas of total land measuring 1-6 bighas and land comprising Khata/Khatauni No.254/637, Khasra No.3623, 3629 to the extent of 1/5th share, i.e. 1-4 bighas of total land measuring 6-2 bighas, total 2-6-0 bighas situated in Phati Gramang, Kothi Choparsa, Tehsil and District Kullu to respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') for a sum of Rs.8,500/-on 8.6.1992. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid on the date of execution of the agreement itself towards part payment of the sale consideration and remaining Rs.3,500/- was agreed to be paid on 20.6.1993, the date when the sale deed was agreed to be executed. On 20.6.1993 the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kullu throughout the day, however, defendant No.1 did not turn up. He sworn in an affidavit also to this effect, which is Ex.PW-1/B, duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Kullu on 21.6.1993. Subsequently, defendant No.1 was served with legal notice Ex.PW-2/B, however, despite that also, he did not turn up for execution of the sale deed and to the contrary sold the suit land vide sale deed Ex.D-X dated 8.4.1993 to appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No.2'). This has led in filing the suit in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu for the decree of possession of suit land by way of specific performance of contract dated 18.6.1992 and declaration that the sale deed dated 8.4.1993 being void is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) DEFENDANT No.2, on the other hand, has come forward with the version that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for value and consideration without having any notice or knowledge of the alleged agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff allegedly has no right, title or interest in the suit land.