LAKHAN SINGH Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 15.1.03 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 35/2000, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 21.11.97 against the respondent No. 2 and the appellants-defendants in respect of the suit property.

(2.) The case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff before the trial court in nutshell was that the respondent No.2-defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit shop situated at the Circular Road, Bharatpur and that he had agreed to sell the said shop to the plaintiff by executing an agreement dated 21.11.97. According to the plaintiff, on the said date of execution of agreement, he had already paid Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 55,000/- towards sale consideration to the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 had agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the said shop in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter though the plaintiff had repeatedly requested to execute the sale-deed, the defendant No.1 kept on avoiding to execute the same. The defendant No.1 thereafter on 21.9.99 executed the sale deed in respect of the said shop in favour of the respondent No. 2 and 3 i.e. the present appellants. The respondent No.1-plaintiff, therefore, had filed the suit against the respondent No.2 and the present appellants seeking specific performance of the said agreement dated 21.11.97 allegedly executed by the respondent No.2.

(3.) The respondent No.2 and the appellants-defendants had resisted the suit by filing the joint written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that no such agreement was ever executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 21.11.97 and that the suit shop was already sold out by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 and 3. It was further contended that the plaintiff had misused the blank stamp paper, which was lost by the defendant No.1 when he was going on scooter on 6.8.99, for which he had also lodged a complaint. In short the defendants had prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.