KASHIRAM Vs. NETRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Kashiram and two others against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Ganganagar in a suit for specific performance of a contract.

(2.) THE suit was brought by Netram against the three appellants and Bhinyaram who has not preferred to appeal. THE case of Netram was that 21 Bighas of land in Murabba 54 in Chak 9 HH belonged originally to Bhinyaram. THEy were mortgaged with possession with the plaintiff through two mortgage-deeds one for Rs. 2450/- and the other for Rs. 1225/-, that is, the total amount of the encumbrance on the property was Rs. 3,675/ -. On the 27th of October, 1949, Bhinyaram was in need of more money and executed an agreement Ex. P-1 in favour of Netram by which he agreed to sell these 21 Bighas to Netram at the rate of Rs. 275/- per Bigha. He also received Rs. 1000/- in advance and promised to execute the sale-deed by next Jeth. THE Balance of the consideration amounting to Rs. 1100/- was agreed to be paid before the Sub-Registrar. It was also agreed that in case Bhinyaram failed to carry out the agreement. Netram would be entitled to file a suit for specific performance or to get back the sum of Rs. 1000/- paid in advance with interest. THE plaintiff's case was that he was pressing Bhinyaram to execute the sale-deed, but Bhinyaram was putting it off for one reason or the other. On the 20th March, 1950, the plaintiff learned that Bhinyaram was going to sell the property to a third person. He, therefore, went to Ganganagar and informed Kashiram and his brothers (appellants) about the agreement in his favour but in spite of that, a sale-deed was executed on that very day viz. , 10th March, 1950. THEn on the 21st March, the plaintiff filed the suit praying for temporary injunction against Bhinyaram as well as Kashiram. He tried to get the injunction crier served on these persons, but they refused to accept it. THEn he applied to the Sub-Registrar on the same day viz. , 21st March, asking him not to register the sale-deed; but the Sub-Registrar did not desist (as he obviously could not refuse to register the deed because of an objection of this nature ). THE sale-deed was executed and actually registered on the 22nd March, 1950. It may be mentioned that 9 Bighas were mortgaged with Kashiram and his brothers, but that does not affect the position so far as the present suit is concerned. On the 30th March, 1950, the plaintiff applied for an amendment of the plaint and impleaded Kashiram and his brothers as defendants. THE suit was resisted by the vendees. Bhinyaram filed a written statement in which he admitted the plaintiff's claim and thereafter took no further part in the proceedings. A number of issues were framed by the trial court; but the main contention was whether the vendees were bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the original agreement. This point was decided by the trial court against the appellants, and the suit was therefore decreed.