BADRI RAM Vs. PRITHVI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-4-2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract dated 27-6-1998.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendant alleging that the defendant agreed to sell six bighas of agricultural land from his share in the joint holding land of 18 bighas and 17 biswas. The defendant executed agreement dated 27-6-1998. The defendant received Rs. 2,80,000/-. In pursuance of the above agreement, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the sale-deed will be executed by 26-6-1999. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the above land by paying the market cost of the land. The defendant, after getting the above amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- did not execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also submitted that though it is mentioned in the agreement that possession of the land has been handed over to the plaintiff but, in fact, possession was not handed over to the plaintiff. When the defendant avoided to execute the sale-deed and to hand over the possession of the land, the plaintiff moved an application on 27-6-1999 before the Sub-Registrar, Hindumalkot for getting registration of the agreement, upon which the notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar, Hindumalkot. The defendant, in response to the above notice, appeared in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 3-8-1999 and 20-8-1999. According to the plaintiff, the defendant-appellant agreed execution of the agreement in the office of the Sub-Registrar, upon which the order dated 20-8-1999 was passed and the plaintiff was directed to deposit stamp-duty. The plaintiff further pleaded that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant did not comply with the terms of the agreement nor he gave possession of the land from the joint holding and, therefore, the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant submitted the written statement and stated that he never entered into an agreement for sale of the above land. No consideration was received by the defendant and it was submitted that the plaintiff is the Benami person of Firm Gangaram Jaisaram. It was also submitted that the land in dispute is ancestral property and is in possession of his brother Brijlai and his son.