HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Madho Ram plaintiff -appellant instituted a civil suit in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Palampur, against defendant -respondent Lakha Ram alleging that Lakha Ram executed an agreement to sell his land comprised in Khata No. 1, Khatauni No. 1, Khasra No. 27i3, measuring 0 -17 -83 hectares, situate in Mohal Tikkar, Mauza Alampur, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, on 17 -7 -1983, and it had been agreed that the total consideration would be Rs, 6,500 which was paid in lump sum to Lakha Ram on that very day. Lakha Ram had further agreed to execute the sale -deed within a period of three years and in case of default the land was to be deemed to have been sold. It was further alleged that the possession of the suit land was delivered to Madho Ram on the day of execution of the agreement to sell Based on the above allegations Madho Ram prayed for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the suit land and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession. Madho Ram moved an application under the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the plaint. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court whereby Madho Ram was allowed to add to the prayer clause that he be granted a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell, in the alternative.
(2.) The suit was contested by Lakha Ram defendant who raised several preliminary objections. He averred, as far as merits of the case were concerned, that he had never borrowed any money from the plaintiff nor executed any deed in his favour. The alleged agreement was stated to be a result of fabrication. It was also pleaded that he did not deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and that he himself continued to be in possession as an owner.
(3.) The parties were taken to trial on the following issues ? -
1.Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated 17 -7 -1983 with the plaintiff as alleged ? If so, its effect. OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff become owner in possession of the suit land in view of the terms of agreement to sell dated 17 -7 -1983 as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court -fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not within limitation ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged ? OPD8. Relief. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, on merits, it was held, that agreement to sell dated 17 -7 -1983 at Ex. PW 2/A was duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and that plaintiff had become the owner in possession of the suit land in view of the terms of the said agreement,
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.