R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff Shri Achhar Singh, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1999, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1998 passed by the trial Court, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed with costs.
(2.) SHRI Achhar Singh is non else but the father-in-law of Smt. Ranjit Kaur and father of S/Shri Amarjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Tarlochan Singh, who are defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the trial Court. It is a case of betrayal of trust which I will try to show from my subsequent discussion of my this judgment but at the moment, I may give the facts of the case leading to the present suit. Defendant No. 1 Smt. Gurdev Kaur through her attorney Shri Mohinder Singh, defendant No. 2, entered into an agreement of sale dated 21.11.1980 regarding the plot measuring 258-1/3 sq.yards for a total consideration of Rs. 32,990/- with the plaintiff and terms and conditions were reduced into writing on the same day. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 24,218/- by way of earnest money and he was to pay Rs. 8,072/- at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff Shri Achhar Singh alleges that in pursuance of the agreement he got the possession of the plot and so much so he raised the construction over it and after sometime he paid Rs. 700/- more to Shri Mohinder Singh, defendant No. 2 at his instance and after sometime defendant No. 2 as attorney of defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed dated 5.6.1989 in favour of defendants No. 4 to 6 namely Amarjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Tarlochan Singh at the instance of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff had been calling upon defendants No. 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed of the remaining portion but to no effect. Rather the matter was being delayed. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that he gave the original agreement of sale to defendant No. 4. When it was demanded from him he made an excuse that the agreement has been lost. According to the plaintiff he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He called upon defendants No. 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed of the remaining portion of the property but he was informed by defendant No. 2 that defendants No. 1 and 2 had already executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 3 Smt. Ranjit Kaur. Resultantly, the plaintiff called upon defendants No. 3 and 4 to admit that the second sale deed dated 9.7.1991 executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 as null and void document as they were fully aware that there was a prior agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and by virtue of that agreement defendants No. 1 and 2 were required to execute the sale deed with regard to the remaining portion of the plot. Since defendants No. 3 and 4 have not admitted this fact, hence the suit.
(3.) NOTICE of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant No. 1 Smt. Gurdev Kaur and her attorney Shri Mohinder Singh, Defendant No. 2, filed a joint written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. They took the preliminary objections to the effect that suit is not within limitation and the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, it was alleged that agreement dated 21.11.1980 was executed but the same was rescinded and cancelled and two sale deeds i.e. one in the names of defendants No. 4 to 6 and other in the name of defendant No. 3 have been executed.;