Decided on May 12,1997

ATMA RAM Respondents


ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J. - (1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance I have also examined the record of this case.
(2.)A suit for specific performance was filed by late Smt. Parwatoo plaintiff against Atma Ram and others defendants (hereinafter referred to as such) in respect of agreement dated 10 -10 -1984 and for possession of land described in the plaint. According to plaintiff, Atma Ram owner of the land agreed to sell the suit land vide agreement dated 10 -10 -1986 for a consideration of Rs.18,918/ -, out of which Rs.10,600/ - were received as earnest money by Atma Ram in the shape of Rs.8,000/ - being mortgage money paid by her to mortgagee Krishan Lal on behalf of Atma Ram and the balance Rs.2,600/ - was paid in cash to him Sale deed was to be executed on or before 10 -12 -1984 on receipt of balance sale consideration which was agreed to be received at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, Atma Ram in connivance with the defendant No.5, when the latter had full knowledge of the agreement dated 10 -10 -1984, purchased the suit land in favour of his sons i.e. defendants No.2 to 4. Immediately on coming to know of this fraud on 9 -11 -1984, the plaintiff filed the suit. It was further pleaded by her that she is ready and willing to perform her part of agreement.
(3.)This suit was resisted and contested by defendants, who claimed to be bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice and estoppel was also pleaded against the plaintiff. The trial court after deciding issues No. l to 3 in favour of the plaintiff decreed the suit. This judgment and decree passed by the trial court was questioned by defendants No.2 to 5 in Civil Appeal No. 3 8 -S/l 3 of 1986 wherein pi ain tiff as well as Ann a Ram original defendant No. 1 was arrayed as respondent and by means of Civil Appeal No.64 -S/13 of 1988 by Atma Ram wherein plaintiff as well as defendants No.2 to 5 were arrayed as respondents* By means of impugned judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court allowed both the appeals and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is this judgment and decree of the first appellate Court which is questioned by the plaintiff in the present appeal. During the pendency of the present appeal Smt. Parwatoo died and Khazana Ram and Devkoo were ordered to be impleaded as appellants No. l -A and 1 -B as per orders passed on C.M.P. (M) 166 of 1993 dated 12 -10 -1993 and that is now both of them have been substituted as appellants.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.