- (1.) Ramesh Chander the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.04.1999 in respect of double storeyed shop alongwith staircase and roof, executed by respondent no. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Respondent no. 1 received Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. The sale deed was to be executed by 15.04.2000. The further allegations were made with regard to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract for which he marked his presence marked in the office of Sub-Registrar on 17.04.2000 as 15.04.2000 and 16.04.2000 were holidays. The plaintiff served a notice to respondent no. 1 to get the sale deed executed on 10.07.2000 and marked his presence in the office of Sub-Registrar. Respondent no. 1 did not turn up on both these dates. The appellant got his presence marked by way of affidavit sworn in before the Executive Magistrate.
(2.) Respondents no. 2 and 3 were impleaded in the suit because they are stated to be subsequent vendees on the strength of sale deed dated 03.07.1999, executed by Sneh Gandotra, the mother of respondent no. 1 and her three daughters on the basis of power of attorney held by her from the other legal heirs of Mohinder Nath, the original owner. It was the plea of respondent-defendants that Mohinder Nath, the original owner of the property was survived by five legal heirs and respondent no. 1 was not competent alone to execute the agreement. Otherwise, execution of agreement in question was even denied by respondent-defendant no. 1. Respondent-defendants no. 2 and 3 pleaded themselves to be the bonafide purchasers of the shop in question. In fact there was an oral agreement entered between respondent-defendant no. 1 and owners on 03.04.1999 in respect of the shop in question. Sneh Gandotra mother of respondent no. 1 had received an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- by way of bank draft no. 128440 and also issued a receipt in this regard in favour of respondents no. 1 and 2. On the strength of oral agreement that the sale deed was executed.
(3.) Learned trial court framed the following issues from above pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property by specific performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 10.04.1999 OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of the damages as prayed for OPP 4. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants are entitled for special costs OPD 5. Whether the suit is bared under order 2, rule 2 CPC OPD 5A. Whether the defendant no. 1 entered into an agreement for the sale of suit property on 10.04.1999 in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- If so its effect OPP 5B. Whether the defendants no. 2 and 3 are bonafide purchaser of the shop in dispute alongwith other property for consideration without prior knowledge of the agreement OPD 6. Relief.;