RAM KARAN Vs. GOVIND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been heard finally at the admission stage itself. Since the parties are duly represented by their counsel.

(2.) The background in the context of which the present appeal has been filed briefly stated is that the appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred to as "plaintiffs") instituted a civil suit before Civil Judge (J.D.), Baran titled Ram Karan and others v. Govind Lal vide Civil Suit No. 157/81 (125/92) on the allegations that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 Govind Lal and his mother late Smt. Ram Kawari Bai had jointly executed an agreement for sale of the agricultural land falling in Khasra Nos. 274 measuring 26 bighas 18 biswas in village Ghorigaon, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran in consideration of Rs. 5000/-, hence a lawful contract came into force between the parties w.e.f. 24-4-1966. This fact is also borne out from the certified copy of the aforesaid agreement which has been shown to this Court during the course of hearing of this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants. It was further contended in the plaint that after the death of mother of defendant No. 1 Govind Lal, the plaintiffs had served a notice upon the defendants through their counsel on 1-9-1981 to get the sale agreement registered and for specific performance of the contract, since the respondent had wilfully and for reasons best known to him had failed to execute the sale-deed notwithstanding having received the consideration of Rs. 5000/- in lieu of the sale of the aforesaid land but had mala fide intention of not passing over the legal title to the plaintiff, since evidently he was waiting for acceleration of the price of land and his intention had changed which resulted in filing of the aforesaid suit for specific performance by the plaintiffs. It is noteworthy to mention that prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance by the plaintiff, the respondent with mala fide and ulterior motive had also filed a suit for recovery of possession of the land in question from the plaintiffs, since obviously he had no intention to execute the sale-deed. In a suit for specific performance instituted on the basis of a duly executed agreement to sell, the basic requirement of law which the Civil Court at the first instance should appreciate is the intention of the party vendor who had sold the land and received full consideration in lieu of the said sale and also as to whether he has any intention to pass on a lawful and valid title to the vendee i.e. buyer and this aspect is also to be seen on the basis of the evidence adduced during trial by either party to the case. In this case it is an admitted fact that the agreement to sell was lawfully executed between the parties on 24-4-1966 and what has to be seen is the conduct of the vendor, i.e., seller after the execution of the agreement of sale. Rather from the evidence on the record and also the pleadings of the parties it is fully borne out that the respondent had absolutely no intention to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant notwithstanding having received full sale consideration, since otherwise nothing would have impelled him to institute a suit for recovery of possession of that very land to which earlier he was willing party for sale. The conduct of the respondent in my view deserves to be highly deprecated and this deplorable conduct which vitiates the very letter and spirit of the agreement to sell, since the appellant at no stage had expressed his unwillingness to get the sale-deed lawfully executed before the Registrar of Properties. This fact is also borne out from the notice which the appellant served on the respondent through his counsel after having waited all through during the period 24-4-1966 to 19-6-1981 when the legal notice was served and thereafter having received no positive reply from the respondent he ultimately filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement in the Civil Court as on 13-11-1981.

(3.) From the perusal of para 10 of the written statement filed by respondent before the trial Court it is revealed that the respondent had made an averment that the land is ancestral and belongs to undivided Hindu family and was not meant for benefit of the family. It had further been averred that Ram Kuwari Bai, defendant No. 2, had no authority vested in her to enter into agreement of sale with the appellants for the aforesaid land and even if any such agreement had been entered into between the parties it shall have no consequential effect upon the rights of the parties.