LAWS(HPH)-1984-3-12

GANESHI LAL Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER GUPTA

Decided On March 05, 1984
GANESHI LAL Appellant
V/S
JAGDISH CHANDER GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed this suit claiming specific performance of a contract and registration of a deed relating to the property which is fully described in the plaint. They also pray for possession of apart of the property and for recovery of Rs. 5,400 on account of the use and occupation of this property by defendant No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 150 per month. Future mesne profits are also claimed.

(2.) It is alleged that defendant No. 1 (Shri Jagdish Chander Gupta) agreed to sell the disputed property to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 48,000 out of which an amount of Rs. 40,000 was paid to defendant No.1 A receipt for Rs 40,000 dated 11 -12 -1975 was executed by defendant No.1 and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the deed. The plaintiffs purchased stamp papers and a sale deed was executed on these stamp papers on 18 -11 -1974. A duplicate copy of the sale deed was also prepared as it was to be pasted in the book of the Sub -Registrar. The sale deed along with the copy was presented in the office of the Sub -Registrar for registration by defendant No.1 on 26 -11 -1974, but defendant No, 2 (Shri Surinder Pal Singh) filed an application with the Sub -Ragistrar requesting him not to register this sale deed for the reasons that defendant No. 2 was also an owner of the property and that the property was under valued. This application of defendant No. 2 was postponed to 27 -11 -1974 and the parties were asked to appear on that date. Defendant No. 2 did not appear and in the meantime a suit was filed by defendant No. 2 against defandant No.1 in which a stay order was obtained from the Court of Subordinate Judge Simla. This stay order was received by the Sub -Registrar with the result that the document already presented could not be registered.

(3.) It is further alleged that possession of a part of the property was delivered to the plaintiffs and that some portion of the property was in possession of defendant No. 2 who was living there as a licensee.