Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 and 3 (vendees) and Sri Atul Dayal along with Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Facts
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that an agreement to sale dated 01.01.1974 of the disputed agricultural land was executed by the defendant No.1/ respondent No.2 Rajendra Singh in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Sri Ranjeet Singn. In the aforesaid agreement to sale, the last date fixed for performance of the contract was 30.06.1975. However, instead of executing a sale deed for performance of the aforesaid agreement to sale, the defendant respondent No.2 executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendants-appellants Satya Pal Singh and Ravinder Singh whereby he sold the disputed property to them. On coming to know this fact, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 issued a notice and, thereafter, filed O.S. No.133 of 1978 (Ranjeet Singh vs. Rajendra Singh and others). In paragraph-12 of the plaint, the plaintiff respondent has specifically stated that on 01.07.1978 and 02.07.1978 (Saturday and Sunday), the court was closed due to summer vacation and as such the plaint was presented on 03.07.1978. In the aforesaid suit, the trial court framed eight issues. The present appeal is being pressed only with respect to the findings recorded on issue Nos.5 and 6. The issues framed by the trial court are reproduced below: "1. Whether the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the property in dispute for Rs.30,000/- on 1-1-74 and executed the agreement in favour of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the defendant no.1 received Rs.20,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff on 1-1-74? 3 Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and to pay the balance of consideration? 4 Whether the defendant no.1 has committed the breach of agreement? 5 Whether the defendant nos.2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers for consideration and without notice? If so, its effect? 6 Whether the suit is time barred? 7 Whether the suit is not maintainable? 8 To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"
(3.) The issue Nos.1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the defendant No.1 did receive Rs.20,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff-respondent and executed a registered agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff on 01.01.1974. The issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The issue Nos.4 and 5 have been decided together and it has been held that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 had purchased the disputed property without notice of the agreement dated 01.01.1974 but it could not be established that the purchase was for consideration. It was also held that the defendant No.1, committed breach of the agreement to sale dated 01.01.1974. Issue No.6 has been answered in negative and it has been held that the suit is not barred by time. Issue No.7 has been answered in affirmative holding that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce specific performance in respect of the land sold by the defendant No.1 to defendant Nos.2 and 3. Issue No.8 has also been answered in favour of the plaintiff.;