MIRZA MAHMOOD BEG Vs. JEEVAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of dispute in this appeal consists of two plots of agricultural, situated in village Rajodiya, Tehsil (sic). Rao Raja Ramnath Singh agreed to sell the land in question to the plaintiff -respondents Jeevanlal and Bhagwati (brothers) for Rs. 8000/ - by a document dated 9.9 65 marked Ex. 1 on the record The plaintiffs case is that a part of the sale price, i.e. Rs. 660/ - were piid to Ram Raja Ramnath Singh prior to 9.9.1965 and Rs. 1000/ - were pard on 9.9.1965 at the time of execution of Ex. 1, and it was fur her agreed that the balance of the sale price, i.e. Rs. 400/ - would be pard before getting the sale deed registered. The plaintiffs allegation is that even though the sale deed was not got registered the vendcr Ramnath Singh nevertheless handed over the possession of the land to them. But, subsequently their allegation is that the appellant Mirza Mahmood Bag started interfering with their possession over the land in dispute as a result of which proceedings were initiated Under Section 145 Cr. P.C which terminated in favur of the plaintiffsby the order dated 31.1.1967 (Ex. 3). However, the plaintiffs were not able to obtain possession of the land. Consequently, they served notice Ex. 4, dated 4.10.1966 on Ramnath Singh calling upon the latter to execute and get registered a sale deed in their favour and filed the present suit on 31.10.1966, impleading Rao Raja Ramnath Singh and Mirza Mahmood Beg as defendants to the suit and prayed that a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell Ex. 1, be passed in their favour and so also a decree for possession of the land be granted to them. A further prayer was made that a perpetual injunction may be issued against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the land in dispute.

(2.) RAO Raja Ramnath Singh denied the plaintiffs' suit and pleaded that he had sold the land in dispute to the defendant No. 2 Mirza Mahmood Beg by a registered sale deed, dated 15. 6.1966 for a consideration of Rs. 12000/ -. Among other pleas taken by him the important ones were that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the agreement Ex. 1 was in any case unenforceable at law as it was uncertain. Certain other legal pleas were also taken but it is not necessary to refer to them in detail; in view of the conclusion to which I have come and which I shall presently state.

(3.) IT may be stated here that in the course of arguments before the trial court Mirza Mahmood Beg made an application dated 10 -8 -1971 wherein he raised an objection that Hassam Beg, who was a co -vendee in the sale deed Ex. A -1 was a necessary party to the suit, and since Hassam Beg had not been made defendant in the case the suit was liable to be dismissed on account of non -joinder of necessary party. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed this application and held that Hassam Beg was not a necessary party to the suit It was also held by him that such an objection could not be entertained without a specific pleading in the written statemant.