RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. PREM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants becoming aggrieved, from, the concurrently recorded verdicts, hence, by both the learned Courts below, initially, by the learned Civil Judge, upon, Civil Suit No. 216/1 of 2006/2005, and, latter by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 42-? S/13 of 2008, (i) wherethroughs, the plaintiff's suit, for, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? rendition, of, a decree, for, specific performance of contract of sale, drawn inter-?se, the litigants concerned, in the year . 1993, become decreed, (ii) hence, rear thereagainst, the instant appeal, before this Court, (iii) wherethrough, they strive, to, beget reversal, of, the concurrent verdicts, as, became pronounced against them.

(2.) This Court, on 1.9.2010, had, admitted the appeal, instituted by the appellants/defendants, against, the judgment, and, decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon, the hereinafter extracted, substantial question of law, for, its hence making, an adjudication thereon:-?

(3.) The contract of sale, qua wherewith, both, the learned courts below, hence rendered, concurrent decrees, of, specific performance, vis-?a-?vis, the land borne therein, became drawn, inter-?se respondent/plaintiff, and, predecessor-?in-?interest, of, the defendants, namely one Ram Karan rather, in the year 1993. As apparent on a reading of the cross-?examination, of, the plaintiff, the latter is, a, non-?agriculturist, (a) and, hence without, the, apposite valid permission becoming granted, by, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, she became barred, under, the mandate, cast, in Section 118, of, the H.P. Tenancy of Land Reforms Act, to, execute, the, apposite registered deed of conveyance, with, the predecessor-?in-? interest of the defendants, and, qua the suit land. Also there exists no record(s), nor any evidence rather exemplicatory, qua, hers striving, for, an apposite permission, from, the authorities concerned, nor obviously any validly made permission, became accorded, for, thereafter, (b) the apposite registered deed of conveyance, inter-?se her, and, the predecessor-?in-?interest, of, the defendants, becoming hence executed. Significantly, unless, the afore strivings, were, evidently made, during, the lifetime of the predecessor-?in-?interest, of, the defendants, with, whom the plaintiff had drawn, a, contract, of, sale in the year 1993, (c) thereupon a conclusion would become galvanized, vis-?a-?vis, the plaintiff, being unwilling, and, also unready to execute, the, apposite registered deed of conveyance, with, the afore Ram Karan, the, predecessor-?in-?interest, of, the defendants, (d) besides, also a further concomitant inference becomes marshaled, vis-?a-?vis, the relief of specific performance, as, became accorded, by, concurrently recorded verdicts, by, both the learned courts below, hence, warranting, an, interference, becoming hence made, by, this Court.