Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) RAM Singh had agreed to transfer his half share in the agricultural land Khasra No. 72 area 5.3 acre and Khasra No. 215 Aand B area 17.5 acre total area 20.45 acre situate in village Kherat, district Mathura in favour of Sughar Singh for a total consideration of Rs. 56,000/- after receiving an advance of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of the agreement. The agreement was executed on 10.10.1976 but was not registered as at the relevant time there was no compulsion for getting such an agreement registered.
(2.) LATER plaintiff Sughar Singh, instituted a suit for specific performance of the above agreement to sell against Ram Singh arraying him as defendant No. 1 and Hari Singh, Rakshapal, Raghuvir and Goverdhan as the other defendants 2 to 5 being the subsequent purchasers of the aforesaid land vide sale deed dated 23.6.84. The aforesaid suit was filed on the allegation that under the aforesaid unregistered agreement to sell defendant No. 1 had agreed to transfer his half share in the said land to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 56,000/-. He had received Rs. 25,000/- in advance at the time of the agreement and it was agreed that the sale deed would be executed within a period of two years. On the request of defendant No. 1 the aforesaid period was extended by three years upto 31.10.81 vide document dated 30.9.1978 and again for a further period of three years upto 31.10.1984 vide document dated 29.9.81. Defendant No. 1 despite notice to execute the sale deed failed to turn up and execute the sale deed though the plaintiff was always ready to fulfill his part of his obligation and to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement. The plaintiff on acquiring knowledge that defendant No. 1 is likely to transfer the aforesaid land in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 even got published in the news paper Amar Ujala dated 24.5.1984 a notice cautioning the public at large not to deal with the aforesaid land in view of the agreement existing in his favour but even then on 23.6.1984 defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed transferring the aforesaid land in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5, The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 by filing a written statement denying the very execution of the agreement dated 10.10.1976 as well as the two documents of alleged extension of time dated 30.7.1978 and 29.9.1981. He also denied having received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of agreement and Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 7000/- respectively at the time of alleged two extensions as part of the sale consideration.
(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 2 to 5 by a separate written statement contended they are the bona fide purchasers in good faith of the aforesaid land for value vide registered sale deed dated 23.6.1984. They had no knowledge of the agreement dated 10.10.1976. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 7.2.1987 and defendant No. 1 together with defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were directed to execute the sale deed of the aforesaid land in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. The Court held that the agreement and the documents granting two extensions of time for executing the sale deed were validly executed by defendant No. 1; he had received a sum of Rs. 25,000/, 8000/- and 7000/- respectively total Rs. 40,000/as part of sale consideration; the plaintiff was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed; and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have not purchased the aforesaid land bonafidely.;