RAHUL BHARGAVA Vs. VINOD KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant No. 1 is in appeal against the judgment, decree, dated 1.3.2000, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 34 S/13 of 1997, reversing judgment and decree, dated 30.4.1997, passed by learned Sub Judge (1), Shimla in Case No. 15/1 of 96/90.

(2.) THE facts as emerge from the plaint are that respondents No. 1, 2 filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement, dated 7.6.1989 and permanent prohibitory injunction against appellant defendant No. 1. The respondent No. 3 was also impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. It has been alleged that husband of respondent No. 1 was tenant under father of appellant in Cottage No. 1, Bhargav Estate, Tutikandi. The father of appellant approached respondent No. 2 and offered to sell to respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 Cottage No. 2 comprised in khasra Nos. 549/513/342/1 and 546/334/1 and ultimately, it was agreed that respondent No. 1 would purchase Cottage No. 2, for a sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/ . In absence of permission, under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) immediate execution and registration of the sale deed was not possible, therefore, it was agreed to enter upon an agreement to sell and accordingly an agreement dated 7.6.1989 was executed between the parties for selling Bhargav Cottage No. 2 by appellant in favour of respondent No. 1 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/ . The respondent No. 1 paid total sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/ to appellant, The respondent No. 1 came in possession of the property and even started collecting rent from tenants occupying said property. The sale deed could not be executed for want of permission, under Section 118 of the Act.

(3.) THE appellant and his father later on orally informed respondents No. 1 and 2 that they will have to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ over and above Rs. 90,000/ for which property was agreed to be sold under the agreement, and, therefore, notice dated 1.6.1990 was issued by appellant to respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 were informed by the appellant that he was cancelling, revoking the power of attorney executed by him in favour of respondent No. 2 and he was resiling from the agreement dated 7.6.1989. In these circumstances, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent prohibitory injunction on the basis of agreement dated 7.6.1989 with respect to property comprised in khasra Nos. 536/334/1 and 549/513/342/1 measuring 0 02 00 bigha, situate in Mouza Dhar, Tutikandi, District Shimla popularly known as Bhargav Cottage No. 2, Tutikandi, Shimla. The respondent No. 1 got permission from the State Government to purchase the property in question, which was conveyed to her vide letter dated 31.1.1991.