KULWANT SINGH Vs. JAGTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed assailing the order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Appellate Court by which judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been set aside and the case has been remanded back to the Trial Court with the direction to re-admit the suit under its original number and to retry/ re-decide the case as per the evidence on record. It has been further directed to record its clear and specific finding on each issue, provide opportunity of being heard to both the sides and if any party requests for providing it opportunity to lead some more evidence, then it should also be considered by the Trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.2005 and in the alternative, recovery of Rs. 14,00,000/- including damages of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum till its realization from defendant no.1. The plaintiff has averred that defendant no.1, being owner in possession of the suit land measuring 4 kanals, entered into the agreement with him on 30.12.2005 for Rs. 28,00,000/- per acre after receiving a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- as earnest money and the sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered within four months after the sanctioning of mutation in favour of the vendor. The mutation no.20689 was sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 on 15.06.2007, but it was found by the plaintiff that he was bent upon to alienate the suit land to some other person due to hike in prices. The plaintiff thus filed Civil Suit No.167 dated 14.08.2007 for permanent injunction restraining him from alienating the suit land. However, the said suit was withdrawn by him on 16.03.2009 for filing the suit for specific performance. It was further averred that defendant no.1, in connivance with defendant no.2-appellant, prepared another alleged agreement to sell dated 14.06.2007 to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2-appellant filed a suit against defendant no.1 for specific performance of the agreement to sell on 23.08.2007 which was decided on 18.07.2009 without impleading the plaintiff as a party. On the basis of the decree in that suit, the sale deed bearing Vasika No.1824 dated 31.12.2009 was also got executed in favour of defendant no.2-appellant and mutation No.23555 dated 11.01.2010 was also sanctioned in favour of defendant no.2-appellant on the basis of the said sale deed. Defendant no.2-appellant filed an application on 17.08.2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to become a party to the suit, then the plaintiff came to know about the alleged agreement to sell dated 14.06.2007 and judgment dated 18.07.2009. It was alleged that the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in his favour as per agreement to sell dated 30.12.2005, but they flatly refused to it and hence, the present suit was filed.

(3.) Defendant no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte on 15.04.2009, whereas defendant no.2, who is the present appellant, filed an application for impleading him as a party which was allowed on 06.01.2010. In the written statement, defendant no.2-appellant alleged that the plaintiff has filed the suit in connivance with defendant no.1 Jagtar Singh by preparing an antedated agreement to sell dated 30.12.2005. It was also averred that he had become owner of the property in dispute by way of sale deed dated 31.12.2009 and is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice.