DALBIR SINGH - DEFENDANT Vs. KULJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 1248 and 1249 of 1982 as similar question of law arise in the two appeals.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of 51 kanals of land on payment of Rs. 94750/- and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 40,000/-. As per averments made in the plaint, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 entered into an agreement of sale of 51 kanals of land, as detailed in the heading of the plaint, on 13.7.1977 at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre. Rs. 20,000/- were paid by the plaintiffs as earnest money to defendants No. 1 to 7. Agreement to sale was reduced into writing. As per terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by 3-3-1978. In case of breach of the agreement by the vendees, the earnest money was to be forfeited. However, in case the vendors made any breach, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover double of the earnest money in the alternative for damages besides the right of getting the agreement specifically performed. According to the plaintiffs, they were and are willing to perform their part of the agreement and get the sale deed registered. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have refused. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 8 to 11 had knowledge of the earlier agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 dated 13.7.1977 but despite this they purchased land measuring 22 kanals out of the land subject-matter of the agreement of sale dated 13.7.1977 and so they being necessary parties have been impleaded in the present suit. Since the defendants have declined to perform the specific performance of the contract, hence this suit.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 put in appearance, denied the allegations of the plaintiffs and thus contested the suit. The defendants (vendors) however, admitted the execution of the agreement dated 13.7.1977. According to the defendants, in fact, they executed three other agreements had in favour of the plaintiffs. Out of these three agreements, the land under two agreements had already been sold in favour of the plaintiffs and the sale deed duly executed, However, it has later come to their knowledge that the plaintiffs have got included the land of Sucha Singh and Darshan Singh sons of Sunder Singh in the earlier executed sale deeds. Thus, the defendants became suspicious and so declined to perform their part of the contract. Besides this, it was alleged that since defendants No. 1 to 7 had less than 51 kanals of land in this khewat, so his agreement is illegal.