SANGAT RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. HARSH KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants, who have suffered the decree of specific performance of the contract at the hands of both the learned courts below and aggrieved thereby have preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on the ground that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the land measuring 0-04-43 hectare being 1/4th share out of total land measuring 0-17-74 hectare, comprised in Khata and Khatauni No.36/52, Kittas 2, situated at Mouja Shirar, Phati Shirar, Kothi Raison, land measuring 0-25-48 hectare being 1/4th share out of total land measuring 1-01-94 hectares, comprised under Khata and Khatauni No.11/11, Kittas 7 and land measuring 0-10-47 hectare being 2067/3975 shares out of total land measuring 0-25-48 hectare, comprised in Khata and Khatauni No. 12/12, Khasra No.182, total land measuring 0-10- 47 hectare, situated at Up Muhal Trisari, Phati Mandalgarh, Kothi, Mandalgarh, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. (for short, the suit land). Defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.6,50,000/- as per agreement, dated 30.10.2009 and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- was paid to defendant No.1 as earnest money in presence of the witnesses and remaining sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on 5.11.2010. However, defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on the given date, although the plaintiff remained present in Tehsil complex on 4.11.2010 and 6.11.2010 as it was holiday on 5.11.2010 on account of 'Diwali' festival. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, whereas it was defendant No.1 who was not willing to perform his part and, he with connivance of defendant No.2, who is his daughter, transferred the suit land in her favour vide settlement deed No.2084, dated 15.11.2010, which settlement was alleged to be null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in his favour, but he did not pay any heed constraining him to file the suit for specific performance along with possession of the suit land against both the defendants with further prayer to declare the settlement deed No.2084, dated 15.11.2010 as illegal, null and void.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement, wherein preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability of the suit, the alleged agreement being forged and fictitious having never been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 we re taken. On merits, it was specifically denied that defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land or had received Rs.6,30,000/- from the plaintiff towards sale consideration. It was further averred that the agreement was forged and fictitious and not binding on the defendants. Defendant No.1 being the owner in possession of the suit land had rightly transferred the same in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of settlement deed No.2084, dated 15.11.2010.