- (1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2012. Successorin-interest of Karnail Singh-defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4 filed separate appeals against the said decree and both the appeals were dismissed by the first appellate court on 27.04.2013. This is how, defendants No.2 to 4 are before this court, in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) In short, plaintiff-Tarsem Singh prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.06.2004, executed by defendant No.1, as regards land measuring 2 bighas 19 biswas, being 1/6th share out of total land measuring 17 bighas 14 biswas, comprised in khasra numbers as depicted in the plaint. Further, a declaration that sale deed dated 04.05.2005, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4, as regards land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas out of the suit property i.e. 2 bighas 19 biswas, was null and void, and a sham transaction. Further, the same was not binding qua the rights of the plaintiff and, was thus, liable to be set aside. It was averred that defendant No.1, namely, Karnail Singh executed an agreement to sell, as regards the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on 25.06.2004. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- were paid to defendant No.1 by way of earnest money. The total sale consideration that was settled between the parties was Rs. 1,47,500/-. Since the suit land was in the name of father of defendant No.1, namely, Swaran Singh, who had expired, it was agreed between the parties that defendant No.1 would first get the mutation sanctioned in his name and intimate the plaintiff in writing and thereafter a date for execution and registration of the sale deed would be mutually fixed by the parties. It was maintained that mutation No.5968 was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 and other legal heirs of Swaran Singh, but Karnail Singh (defendant No.1) breached the terms of the agreement, as no intimation in this regard was ever given to the plaintiff. Rather, defendant No.1 sold the land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas out of the suit property to defendants No.2 to 4, vide sale deed dated 04.05.2005. Thus, defendant No.1 in connivance with the other defendants had played a fraud with the plaintiff. Since possession of the suit property was given to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement but subsequently defendants No.2 to 4 forcibly occupied 1 bigha 10 biswas and as a result, plaintiff lodged DDR No.11 dated 21.05.2005. Since despite repeated requests of plaintiff, defendants refused to accept his claim. Thus, the suit.
(3.) Defendant No.1, in a written statement filed by him, pleaded that the suit property was ancestral and co-parcenary and, thus, he had no right to sell the same. Further, the very existence and execution of the agreement in question i.e. dated 25.06.2004 was denied. It was pleaded, that in fact plaintiff was a money-lender and defendant No.1 had borrowed some money from him and in the process, plaintiff might have forged some documents and prepared a false agreement. Since no agreement was ever executed between the parties, there was no occasion of any breach as regards the terms and conditions set out therein. It was denied that the possession of the suit property was given to the plaintiff pursuant to the alleged agreement.;