- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Jullundur, dt. 20th May, 1975.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Ram Parkash plaintiff No. 1 and Hans Raj father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to B (now respondents 4 to 8) were the owners of the property in dispute and Teja Singh defendant was the tenant under them. The plaintiffs filled an application for ejectment against the defendant under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The defendant contested the application and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He inter alia pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 and Hans Raj had entered into an agreement dated 8th July, 1959 to sell the land to him, The application was dismissed by the Assistant. Collector. It was averred that even if there was an agreement between plaintiff No. 1 and Hans Raj on the one side and the defendant on the other, that was unlawful for the reason that the property was a joint Hindu family property. It was further averred that the defendant also committed breach of the agreement as he failed to perform his part of the same. Consequently, they filed a suit for possession against the defendant.
(3.) In the written statement, the defendant controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs and inter alia pleaded that he was in possession of the land in part performance of the agreement dated 8th duly, 1959, and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and is prepared to do so even now, but the plaintiffs have failed to perform their part of the agreement. He further stated that a sum of Rs. 740/- was due from him to the plaintiffs, which they were not ready to receive from him. Some other pleas were also taken by the defendant which are reflected in the issues. On the pleadings. of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 2. Is the suit not properly valued for purposes op court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD 3. Whether Khata and Khatauni numbers of the suit land are necessary to be given? If so, to what effect? OPD 4. Whether plaintiffs Nos. 4 to 6 are also legal heirs of Hans Raj deceased ? OPP 5. Whether Hans Raj deceased and plaintiff No. 1 executed an agreement to sell the sat land in favour of defendant? OPD 6. If issue No. 5 is proved, whether Said agreement is illegal, unlawful, incorporative as alleged in para 5 of the plaint? OPD 7. Whether defendant has acquired title by adverse possession? OPD 8. Whether defendant is estopped and barred from claiming any title on account of adverse possession? OPP 9. Whether the defendant is in possession of the land in suit in pursuance of the alleged agreement to sell? OPD 10. Relief. The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1, 2 and 7 against the defendant and issues Nos. 5 and 9 in his favour. Issue No. 3 was not pressed. Issues Nos. 4 and 8 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and issue No. 6 against them. The Court further held that the defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. In view of the aforesaid findings, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the findings on the above said issues, except that on issue No. 9, were not challenged. The contentions raised before the Additional District Judge were that the defendant was not in possession of the property in part performance of the agreement, that he did not do any act in furtherance of the agreement and that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The Additional District Judge rejected the first contention and accepted the latter contentions. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.;