M.L. Singhal, J. - (1.) VIDE order dated 15.9.1999, Additional District Judge, Sonepat allowed the defendants to amend their written statement in civil suit No. 241 of 1998 titled Om Parkash son of Tulsa Ram son of Jodha Ram resident of village Ganaur v. Ram Parkash son of Kanshi Ram son of Ganpat Ram resident of Village Panchi Gujran, Tehsil Ganuar and Urmil Kumar alias Vimal Kumar, for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Facts: - Om Parkash filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.1.82 against Ram Parkash and Urmil Kumar alias Vimal Kumar defendants with respect to land measuring 2 kanal 8 marla situated in village Bal, Tehsil Ganaur for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/ - without any further payment. It was alleged in the plaint that the said land was agreed to be sold by defendant No. 2 Urmil Kumar alias Vimal Kumar to him for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. Whole of the amount was received by Urmil Kumar alias Vimal Kumar defendant No. 2 at the time of the execution of the agreement. At the time of the execution of the agreement, land was standing in the name of the custodian. Some instalments were outstanding against defendant No. 2 payable to the custodian. It was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 Urmil Kumar alias Vimal Kumar that as soon as he had deposited the entire instalments due and land was mutated in the name of defendant No. 2, he will execute sale deed in his favour and get it registered. It was agreed that he will execute sale deed in his favour and get it registered within a period of one month of the date when mutation was sanctioned in his favour. It was also agreed that the proprietary and actual possession would also be delivered to him. On 7.3.86, mutation No. 810 was sanctioned in his favour qua that land. He, however, failed to execute sale deed in his favour. It was alleged in the plaint that he came to know that Urmil Kumar alias Vimal Kumar had sold the said land to Ram Parkash defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 29.1.88 for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/ -. He (Plaintiff) was not bound by the said sale in favour of Ram Parkash defendant No. 1. He was entitled to specifically enforce agreement to sell dated 12.1.82 against both the defendants. He was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour on incurring the necessary expense required for the purchase of stamp and the expense of registration. He requested Ram Parkash defendant No. 1 also to transfer the land in his favour as he was holding agreement to sell dated 12.1.82 but to no effect.
(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was denied that defendant No. 2 executed any agreement to sell dated 12.1.82. It was dented that he received any amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. It was denied that he ever executed any receipt showing the receipt of Rs. 10,000/ - by him from the plaintiff. Receipt is false, forged and factitious. Defendant No. 2 did not receive any payment from the plaintiff to be able to pay instalments. He arranged the amount of instalments on his own and paid them to the custodian. Defendant No. 2 after paying the total amount in respect of the land measuring 16 kanal 6 marla obtained sale certificate. Mutation was sanctioned in his favour on 7.3.86. Fact that the plaintiff did not take any step to enforce this agreement for so long shows that no such agreement was executed by defendant No. 2 in his favour. He could never agree to the delivery of possession to the plaintiff as he had leased out the land to defendant No. 1 for a period of 50 years by means of lease deed dated 21.12.81 which was duly registered. Actual possession was with defendant No. 1 as lessee. Defendant No. 2 has sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,000/ - by means of sale deed dated 29.1.88 duly registered at the instance of one Des Raj son of Hakim Rai in whose favour the defendant No. 2 had agreed to sell the suit land by means of agreement dated 27.12.81 under which said Des Raj was authorised to get sale deed executed in his favour or in favour of any other person of his choice. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the land in suit. At the conclusion of the trial of the suit, the suit was decreed for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat. He directed the defendants to execute sale deed with regard to the land in suit in view of his finding that defendant No. 2 had executed agreement to sell dated 12.1.82 in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the land in suit. It was found that he had received the entire sale money at the time of the execution of the agreement.
(3.) DEFENDANT Ram Parkash went in appeal. In appeal, Ram Parkash made an application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC whereby he prayed that he was bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice. Land in suit is adjacent to the land of defendant No. 1 and he had taken the land in suit on lease for 50 years as he had no other approach to his land except through the land in suit. Vide order dated 15.9.99, learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat allowed Ram Parkash defendant to incorporate the proposed amendment in the written statement.;