RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in the present writ petition is, "whether in a suit for specific performance filed for the enforcement of an agreement , the persons who had purchased the property or had acquired right, interest and title therein, prior to the disputed agreement, can be impleaded as party Respondents?"

(2.) The facts in a nutshell, necessary for the determination of the above question are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance for the enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005, allegedly executed in their favour wherein, the defendants No.1 to 4, being legal representatives of Late Shri Roop Lal Kakhani were arrayed as Defendants. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that at the time of execution of the respective agreements to sell, the possession of the plots/land, had been handed over by Shri Roop Lal Kakhani (the vendor) for which a total consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid to him. Plaintiffs further stated that before the said transaction could be completed and registered sale deed could be executed, the vendor passed away on 08.11.2005. It has been averred by the plaintiffs that despite their persuasion, the defendants, being legal representatives of the said vendor, refused to execute the sale deed in their favour, even though the plaintiffs were willing and ready to perform their part of the contract.

(3.) In a bid to make the factum of said agreement known to general public, plaintiffs got a notice published in daily newspaper on 17th December 2015, having its circulation in the area informing that they had purchased the land admeasuring 4.68 hectares by way of the agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005 and have obtained possession thereof. After the publication of the said notice, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of the said agreement for sale, on 20.12.2015. The defendants No.1 to 4 filed a written statement, inter alia refuting the factum of execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005 and contended that the agreement in question was forged, for which the defendants legal representatives of Roop Lal Kakhani, cannot be bound. On the basis of the pleadings of rival parties, the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), framed the following issues:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_64_LAWS(RAJ)7_2017.jpg</IMG>