- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA No.3069 of 2010 titled as "Mulakh Raj Vs. Kishan Kaur and others" and RSA No.4673 of 2009 titled as "Kishan Kaur Vs. Mulakh Raj and others" .
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell shop situated in abadi of Mohalla Miskaran, Rahon with the plaintiff on 12.4.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/ - and received Rs. 40,000/ - as advance on the same day and an another sum of Rs. 5,000/ - on 13.4.1996, further agreeing to execute the sale deed on 30.8.1996.
(3.) ON 9.7.1996, plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction when they came to know that defendant No.1 is in process to sell the shop in question to defendants No.2 and 3. The sale deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 on 10.7.1996 thereafter, the plaintiff amended his suit from injunction to possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiffs alleged that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Defendant No.1 denied the execution of the agreement as well as receipts alleging it to be a result of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of real facts. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had called her to attest certain documents in the capacity as a witness and her thumb impressions and signatures were obtained at 3 -4 places on the blank papers. Defendants No.2 and 3 had filed their separate written statements but their common stand is that they are bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration as they had purchased the property in dispute for a sum of Rs. 30,000/ -. Plaintiffs filed their separate replications, denying averments made by the defendants in their written statements and reiterated the stand taken by them in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 26.3.2001: - "1. Whether the defendant No.1 executed the agreement to sell dated 12.4.1996 and received Rs. 40,000/ - as earnest money? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the agreement abovesaid? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 90,000/ - by way of alternative relief alongwith costs and interest? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred u/o 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD 7. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 9. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and defendant No.1? OPD 10. Whether the defendants No.2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for consideration? OPD 11. Relief.";