GUPTAN DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. NARESH KUMAR SUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit, for, rendition of a decree, for specific performance of agreement of 23.2.1991, vis-a-vis the suit land, stood decreed by the learned trial Court. The defendants being aggrieved therefrom, hence instituted the instant Regular First Appeal, before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for rendition of a decree for specific performance of agreement of 23.2.1991, entered into by the plaintiff and Shri Tek Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, for the sale of land comprised in Khasra No.1125, Khata No.151 min, Khatauni No.319, measuring 0-03-84 hectares, situated at Tikka Aima, Mauza Bundle, Tehsil Palamapur, District Kangra, H.P., for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000.00, as also for rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from selling/encumbering or creating charge of any kind on the suit land. It is averred that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000.00, a sum of Rs.50,000.00 was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of alleged agreement to sell. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the registered deed of conveyance was to be executed on or before 31.08.1992. A further sum of Rs.15,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to late Sh. Tek Chand, against proper receipt on 26.4.1991 in presence of the witness Shri Ashok Kumar. On 22.05.1991, the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.35,000.00 to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants the receipt of the same was executed on the back of agreement of 23.2.1991. IN all the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Shri Tek Chand died after brief illness, somewhere in the month of June, 1991. After the death of Tek Chand, the defendants have inherited the suit land along with other lands of deceased and the same were mutated in their favour. After the death of Tek Chand, the plaintiff approached the defendants to fulfill the promise of the deceased and discharge their obligation, though they were in the know qua the execution of the agreement to sell, yet started showing their ignorance about the same. When all the amicable efforts on the part of the plaintiff failed, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel to all the defendants, but the the notices issued to defendants No.1, 3 to 5 were received with the report "refused to accept". However, defendant No.2 was served with the notice. The defendants replied the notice through their counsel, stating therein that they are not aware of the sale agreement, and, as such, not in a position to make any statement in respect of the aforesaid agreement. It is alleged that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, whereas, the defendants have refused to perform their part of the contract. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, lacks material particulars, deceased Tek Chand had no sale-able interest in the land in question as the land in suit is ancestral property; plaintiff being non agriculturist and is not eligible to acquire the land within the State of H.P. etc. On merits, it is averred that deceased Tek Chand never entered into any agreement for sale with respect to the suit land. The plea of the plaintiff is averred to be false and wrong. It is alleged that during the deceased Tek Chand had strain relations with the father of the plaintiff. In fact, some years back the father of the plaintiff purchased some land from one Sh. Man Chand, who was the uncle of late Sh. Tek Chand. Shri Rasil Chand Katoch filed a preemptions uit, in which late Tek Chand was attorney of Rasil Chand Katoch. That suit was hotly contested by late Tek Chand. In such circumstances, it cannot be imagined that there could by any negotiations and settlement of agreement for sale of the suit land. Accordingly to the defendants, the alleged transaction of agreement for sale as set up by the plaintiff is absolutely false and wrong to the very knowledge of the plaintiff. It is alleged that mostly Tek Chand used to remain ill and on account of weak health and mind, he was unable to know his welfare. IN fact deceased Tek Chand was not in a position to judge his good and bad. Except the suit land, the deceased had no other land, and, as such, he would have been rendered landless in the event of sale of the suit land. It is alleged that no agreement was settled or signed by the deceased as alleged by the plaintiff and alleged agreement is a forged and fabricated document. It is also denied that any amount in advance was paid by the plaintiff to deceased Tek Chand. The plaintiff and his father being the influential persons, have managed to prepare the documents on the basis of which the present suit has been filed.