SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. BAXIS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 8. 2003 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, in Civil Suit No. 114/2002 (22/1999) (47/1998)Baxis Singh vs. Mst. Gurdev Kaur & Anr. , whereby the suit against defendant No. 1 was decreed with cost and it was ordered that the Defendant No. 1 shall get the sale-deed in respect of the disputed land written and executed at the expenses of the plaintiff and shall get it registered before the competent officer within a period of two months from the date of the order. It was further ordered that on Defendant No. 1's failing to do so within the specified period the plaintiff shall have the right to get the sale-deed written and executed and getting it registered in his favour through the Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case inter alia stated in the suit filed by Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 Baxis Singh in the year 1998 against Mst. Gurdev Kaur for specific performance of the agreement dated 27. 5. 1996 in respect of various lands, the details of which find mention in Para No. 2 of the plaint, are to the effect that defendant in whose name the agricultural lands in various kilas of Chak 17 LLW, Tehsil Hanumangarh are entered in the revenue records, is an old aged lady suffering from ailment and is unable to lookafter the same so she has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her nephew Baggasingh s/o Chandsingh to do all such acts on her behalf in respect of transfer, mortgage, giving it on contract etc. which was attested and verified in the office of Sub Registrar, Ganganagar on 30. 4. 1993. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant was in need of money, so she through her Power of Attorney Bagga Singh agreed to sell the aforesaid lands which was 24 Bighas and 13 Biswas @ Rs. 16,400 per bigha to the plaintiff, the possession of which alongwith canal water turn was already with the plaintiff, for a total sum of Rs. 4,02,000 and she received Rs. 60,000/- on 30. 12. 1993 and Rs. 2,90,000 on 5. 2. 1994 and the balance amount of Rs. 52,000/- has been paid to the defendant on the date of execution of the agreement for sale and there remains nothing due in respect of the agricultural lands. THE deed written and attested by the Notary Public was handed over to the plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff is an agriculturist, who is in possession of the land continuously and the Girdawari Nahari (Sudhakar) is in his name and he is making payment of it. THE condition of the agreement says that on the defendant denying to get the registry done, the purchaser shall have the right to get the registry done through Court for which the defendant will be responsible for the expenses. It is also stated in the plaint that since then the plaintiff is in possession of land as Khatedar agriculturist and making payment of Lagan, Rakam & Abyana etc. to the Govt. after the purchase of the land and has developed the land by spending the money. It is further stated that he was always having money for the registry and was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant was not taking steps for getting registry done as per agreement for the reason that there has been escalation in the value of the land and further that as she has received the entire amount of the disputed land she was not interested in getting registry done on false pretexts despite asking time and again. Finally, when she was asked to get the registry done on 12. 6. 1998 at Jodkiya, she clearly refused to the request of the plaintiff as she was inclined to dispose of the land to some other person. It is claimed, as the defendant was not desirous to fulfill her part of contract, the plaintiff was entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance of the contract. In the alternate it was prayed that if for any reason a decree for specific performance of the agreement is not granted, a decree for the double of the amount paid by plaintiff be passed.

(3.) PLAINTIFF in oral evidence got recorded the statements of PW. 1 Jagdish Rai Gupta, PW. 2 Jasjeet Singh, PW. 3 Aadram and himself as PW. 4. In defence, Defendant No. 2 Sukhdev Singh himself appeared before the Court as DW1 and producing DW2 Randheer Singh got his statement recorded. Both the parties in support of their pleas also tendered some documents in evidence.