BHOOM SINGH Vs. INDER RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this civil first appeal, the appellants-plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') have challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 13/7/1989 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.41/1986 titled as "Bhom Singh and Anr. Vs. Inder Raj and Anr. and Civil Suit No.27/1988 titled as Manbhadra Vs. Bhom Singh and Ors.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs purchased a land of khasra No.454 from defendant No.1-Inder Raj in a sale consideration of Rs.40,000.00 and also executed a written agreement to sell dtd. 4/6/1986. At the time of executing the written agreement to sell, a sum of Rs.30,000.00 were paid towards sale consideration. There was a condition in the agreement to sell that defendant No.1-Inder Raj shall redeem the said land by repaying the bank loan. After that, registry was to be done in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1-Inder Raj took the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.10,000.00 on 22/6/1986 for repaying the bank loan but he had not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs served a notice to the defendant No.1 but he had not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and stated that he had not executed any written agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs. Rather, he had executed written agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.2 Manbhadra on 5/4/1986. The defendant No.1 in his reply also stated that the plaintiffs wrongly mentioned the khasra No.454 in the written agreement instead of khasra No.457. The defendant No.2 Manbhadra filed an application for impleading himself as a party in the trial court and the trial court allowed the said application filed by him. Defendant No.2-Manbhadra also filed a suit for specific performance and for declaring the agreement to sell dtd. 4/6/1986 as null and void. The trial court consolidated both the suits and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs for land bearing Khasra No.457 and in favour of Manbhadra for land bearing Khasra No.454.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-