DILDAR SINGH Vs. JAGDEV SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, is, directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned courts below, whereunder, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell, stood hence decreed, in the affirmative.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the on 1.12.1997, defendant No.1 has agreed to sell land comprising khata No.90/171 and 134/208, Khasra Nos. 25R19/2 being share, 25R/19/4, and, 22/1 being ¼ share, situated in village Bathu, Sub Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P., for total consideration of Rs.30,000.00, and, a sum of Rs.15,000.00 was paid as earnest money and an agreement was reduced into writing. Defendant No.1 agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 31.3.1998 and it was also agreed that in case of default the defendant would be liable to pay double of the amount having been received by the defendant as earnest money. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract after paying the balance amount of Rs.15,000.00 as per agreement. The plaintiffs have come to know that defendant No.1 is going to sell the suit land to defendant No.2 Sh. Rasil Singh in order to defraud and frustrate the agreement dated 1.12.1997. The plaintiffs served the notice through registered post upon the defendants to get sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the balance amount by 5.12.1997 and not entering into an agreement with defendant No.2, but defendants refused to receive the notice. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for the decree of specific performance of contract dated 1.12.1997 and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land to defendant No.2 or some other persons and in the alternative the decree for recovery of Rs.30,000.00 along with interest.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability and the suit being premature. On merits, the defendants have alleged that the agreement of 1.12.1997 is not valid and does not require any performance. Defendant No.1 was not competent to execute the said agreement and to dispose of the property thereafter as the same is joint Hindu Family coparcenary property acquire from common ancestor. Defendant No.1 is "Karta" of the joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and is custodian on behalf of his two minor coparceners Mohit Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, which cannot be sold without legal necessity. The defendant is ready to return the earnest money received by him.