M.L.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) BY an agreement to sell dated 27.1.1989, Karam Chand agreed to sell 1/3rd share of land measuring 7 bighas 5 biswas = 2 bighas 8 biswas situated in village Mullanpur Garibdass, Tehsil Kharar with Surinder Pal Singh, Harkirtan Kaur plaintiffs and Avtar Singh s/o Sarwan Singh, defendant for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to Karam Chand by way of earnest money. He was to execute sale deed on receipt of the remaining sum of Rs. 18,000/- on or before 27.1.1990. This agreement was entered into on behalf of the plaintiffs and Avtar Singh defendant through Surinder Pal Singh plaintiff No. 1 on behalf of the purchasers with Karam Chand defendant No.1 in the presence of Babu Singh and Dalip Singh. Karam Chand gave receipt in the presence of Babu Singh and Dalip Singh in token of receipt of Rs. 2000/- as earnest money by him. Plaintiffs were already co-sharers in the land measuring 7 bighas 5 biswas. With a view to having more share in the property they entered into agreement dated 27.1.1989 with Karam Chand. Joginder Singh, Gian Singh, Gurdial Singh @ Dial Singh, Nasib Singh, Amrik Singh, Amarjit Singh ss/o Ralla Singh (defendants No. 2 to 7) were already co-sharers in the suit property with the plaintiffs. They also wanted more share in the suit property but they could not persuade Karam Chand to sell to them his share of the suit property. When they came to know that Karam Chand had already entered into agreement with the plaintiffs, they (Joginder Singh etc.) offered him more for 1/3rd share of 7 bighas 5 biswas. Knowing fully well that Karam Chand had already executed an agreement to sell dated 27.1.1989 with the plaintiffs, they got a sale deed executed in their favour on 9.6.1989 from Karam Chand. Sale deed dated 9.6.1989 executed by Karam Chand defendant in favour of Joginder Singh etc. (defendant Nos. 2 to 7) is of no effect so far as the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 8 are concerned which have accrued to them through agreement dated 27.1.1989. Plaintiffs and Avtar Singh defendant No. 8 have always been ready and willing to obtain sale deed from Karam Chand defendant. Karam Chand defendant defaulted. Before arrival of the stipulated date i.e. 27.1.1990, he sold the land to Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) vide sale deed dated 9.6.1989 and thus committed breach of the agreement dated 27.1.1989. On these allegations, Surinder Pal Singh and Harikirtan Kaur plaintiffs filed suit for possession as owners through specific performance of land measuring 2 bighas 8 biswas i.e. 1/3rd share of land measuring 7 bighas 5 biswas on the basis of agreement to sell dated 27.1.1989. They prayed for direction to Karam Chand, Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) to execute sale deed for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs and Avtar Singh defendant No. 8 after adjudging sale deed dated 9.6.1989 executed by Karam Chand defendant in favour of Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) as of no effect and null and void so far as their rights are concerned. By way of consequential relief, they prayed for restraint on the defendants from alienating the suit property and from receiving any money as compensation in case the suit property was acquired. It was alleged in the plaint that Village Shangariwala is a small village where the plaintiffs, Avtar Singh and Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) are residing. Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) were aware of agreement dated 27.1.1989 when they purchased this land vide sale deed dated 9.6.1989 from Karam Chand.
(2.) KARAM Chand defendant No. 1 contested the suit of the plaintiffs. It was urged that he sold the land in suit to Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) on 9.6.1989 when the plaintiffs and Avtar Singh defendant had failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. He was in need of money for performing the marriage of his daughter and, therefore, he asked the plaintiffs and defendant No. 8 to pay him the remaining sum of money and obtain sale deed and not wait up to 27.1.1990. They did not comply with his request as such he had to sell the land in suit to Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) on 9.6.1989 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (actual). Rs. 27,000/- was entered in the sale deed as the sale price because of the value fixed by the officer of Registrar for such lands for purposes of stamp and registration. Possession was delivered to Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) on 9.6.1989. Joginder Singh etc. (defendants No. 2 to 7) contested the suit of the plaintiffs. It was denied that they (defendants No. 2 to 7) ever requested Karam Chand to sell land to them. It was denied that they offered a higher price of Rs. 27,000/- for the land in suit to Karam Chand. It was land of a poor quality. They were never aware of the agreement to sell dated 27.1.1989 alleged to have been executed by Karam Chand in favour of the plaintiffs and Avtar Singh defendant No. 8. They purchased the land in suit vide sale dated 9.6.1989 from Karam Chand defendant who never told them that this land was already the subject-matter of sale vide agreement dated 27.1.1989. They did not have any notice of agreement to sell dated 27.1.1989 when they purchased this land on 9.6.1989. They are bona fides purchasers for value without any notice of agreement dated 27.1.1989.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- 1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? OPD 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No. 1 ? OPD 5. Whether plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of agreement to sell dated 27.1.1989 ? OPP 6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to possession as owners by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.1.1989 ? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction prayed for ? OPP 8. Whether defendants No. 2 to 7 are the bona fide purchasers for consideration and without notice ? OPD 9. Relief. ;