- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby his suit for possession by way of specific performance has been declined and only the relief of recovery of Rs. 75,000/- has been granted which was the earnest money received by the defendants. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement dated 15.01.1990 alleging that the defendants had agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre and Rs. 20,000/- was paid as earnest money. The possession was also with the plaintiff and he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed and had remained present on the stipulated dated i.e., 29.06.1990 in the Tehsil Complex, Kapurthala and got the affidavit attested to mark his presence. Another agreement dated 04.02.1991 was executed and the defendant paid further a sum of Rs. 55,000/- and it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would get the sale deed executed by serving one months notice. Accordingly, it was contended that the plaintiff was always ready and willing and had got served notice on 28.05.2001 requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed. This notice was received by the defendants on 29.05.2001 and instead of executing the sale deed, reply was sent on 07.06.2001, denying the execution of the agreements.
(2.) The defence taken by the defendants was that the land was allotted to Rakha Ram, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants No. 2 & 3 under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 in a restricted auction that the property in dispute cannot be transferred or alienated in any manner for 20 years to any Non-Scheduled Caste. The plaintiff was Jat Sikh, whereas the defendants belonged to Scheduled Caste, and therefore, the agreement was opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the plaintiff knew this fact and the suit was time barred and the agreements had been executed by fraud and misrepresentation, coercion and had no value in the eyes of law. It was further stated that defendants were sole owners of the property in dispute and were in peaceful and physical possession for the last 12 years. The said suit had earlier been decreed on 08.06.2004. But in an appeal preferred by the defendants, an application for amendment of written statement had been allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court had been set aside and the suit had been remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision.
(3.) The following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether defendants had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, vide agreement dated 15.01.1990 and received Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money? OPP 2. Whether defendants agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff, vide agreement to sell dated 04.02.1991 and received Rs. 55,000/- as earnest money? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of agreements? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreements dated 15.01.1990 and 04.02.1991 or in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 75,000/-? OPP 5. Whether the land in dispute was allotted to Rakha Ram, husband of Seebo under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976? OPD 6. Whether the property in dispute cannot be transferred/alienated for 20 years to any non-scheduled caste? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff Kashmir Singh is a Jat Sikh and defendants are Scheduled Castes? OPD 8. Whether agreements dated 15.01.1990 and 04.02.1991 are unenforceable being opposed to public policy? OPD 9. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 10. Whether suit is within limitation? OPP 11. Relief.;