SOHAN SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 24.09.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance was rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the appellantplaintiff filed a suit, inter alia, with the averments that land ad measuring 26 Bigha 10 Biswa situated at Chak 4-FD, Tehsil Raisinghnagar was owned by Sardar Singh husband of defendant No. 3 Kammo and father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Avtar Singh and Harnam Singh; Sardar Singh has died and after his death defendant No. 1 to 3 are his legal representatives; the agreement pertaining to the disputed land was executed by defendant No. 1 Avtar Singh for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on 14.02.1975 and he received Rs. 25,000/- as advance and executed agreement to sale dated 14.02.1975 and handed over possession of the land; ever since plaintiff was in cultivatory possession of the land; the agreement was entered into by the defendant No. 1 on his own behalf and as attorney of defendant No. 2 Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai and took responsibility to get sale deed executed from Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai; as per the terms of the agreement, it was incumbent on the defendants to receive balance consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and execute sale deed in June, 1976 and get it registered; plaintiff was always ready and willing for getting the sale deed executed in his favour and was still ready; on 08.08.1975 a Panchayat was held regarding the land, wherein, defendants Avtar Singh, Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai agreed to registration in terms of the agreement to sale and accepted the agreement; the Panchayat Nama was scribed by Shanker Singh, resident of 4FD and Avtar Singh, Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai placed their thumb impressions in presence of witnesses; registered notice was given by the plaintiff for getting the sale registered by 30.06.1976, which notice was received; the defendants were told many times to execute the sale deed, which was avoided; as the price of the land has increased, therefore, the defendants have become greedy and have refused to execute the sale on 01.03.1978 and, therefore, the defendants be directed to execute the sale deed.

(3.) A written statement was filed by defendants Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai denying the averments made in the plaint; it was, inter alia, contended that the defendants were not aware of execution of any agreement by Avtar Singh and were not bound by agreement executed by him; they have not executed any agreement with the plaintiff and have not approved the agreement, no notice has been received by them and they were not bound to execute sale in plaintiff's favour.