- (1.) Bal Bhushan Sharma (predecessor of respondents No.1 to 5) and Chetan Singh (respondent No.6) filed the instant suit for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.04.1990 executed by the appellants in their favour and which was extended from time to time. In the suit, it was averred that the appellants entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land @ Rs. 9,02,000 per killa (equivalent to 4 bighas) and received a sum of '6.00 lakh on 29.04.1990 and executed the agreement to sell in question in the presence of witnesses. The date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 31.12.1990, however, on 29.12.1990 both the parties agreed to extend the said date upto 30.05.1991. It is further case of the plaintiff-respondents that the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was further extended upto 31.03.1992 and thereafter the said date was again extended upto 31.10.1992. The said dates were extended as defendants No.1 and 2 had not got their clearance certificate from the Income Tax Department. It was further case of the plaintiff-respondents that they further paid a sum of Rs. 25,000 each on 04.05.1991 to defendants No.1 and 2 vide demand draft No.150824 and 150825. They further paid a sum of Rs. 25,000 each to both the aforesaid defendants on 04.05.1992 vide cheque and Rs. 25,000 each to both the defendants on 14.01.1992 vide another cheque. They also paid Rs. 50,000 to the broker, namely, Prem Bansal in cash and through cheques on different dates. However, defendants No.1 and 2 (appellants) without any notice or knowledge to the plaintiffs, alienated the suit land in favour of defendants No.3 to 40 (now respondents No.7 to 44) and mutation was also sanctioned in their favour on the basis of aforesaid sale deeds which was illegal and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffrespondents and were liable to be set aside. According to the plaintiffrespondents, 31.10.1992 was a holiday in the office of Sub Registrar, Dera Basi and due to this reason they requested defendants No.1 and 2 to come to the office of Sub Registrar on 29.10.1992 for execution and registration of the sale deed. They remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Dera Basi but the defendants did not turn up to execute the sale deed. Thus, the plaintiffs remained always ready and willing and were still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the defendants refused to execute the sale deed in their favour and alienated the suit land in favour of defendants No.3 to 40 and they have refused to cancel the sale deeds.
(2.) On the basis of aforesaid, the plaintiffs prayed for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question and in the alternative claimed Rs. 64,26,750 towards refund of earnest money and interest and damages etc. by filing the instant suit.
(3.) Upon notice, the appellants filed written statement and controverted the averments made in the plaint alleging that they never entered into any agreement to sell in respect of the suit land, as alleged. It was further averred that when they have not executed any agreement to sell, then there was no question of receipt of any amount or execution of any sale deed. It was further averred that they have alienated the suit land rightly and executed the registered sale deeds and mutation in favour of the defendants. All other allegations made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Defendants No.3, 4, 6, 22 to 25 and 30 (now respondents No.7, 8, 10, 26 to 29 and 34) filed separate written statement denying the allegations of the plaint almost on similar grounds, which were averred by defendants No.1 and 2. These defendants took a further objection that they were bonafide purchasers in good faith, without notice and knowledge of any prior transaction and for consideration.;