- (1.) Defendants have come in regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.3.2005 as well as for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell on 22.3.2005 with the plaintiffrespondent No.1 in respect of 100 square yards area through his GPA-defendant No.3. It is further submitted that defendant No.2, being the owner of plot No. 27, 11 and 13, total 160 square yards, comprised in khasra No.68/22, situated in the revenue estate of village Gaunchhi, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad also entered into an agreement to sell dated 22.3.2005 with the plaintiff to sell aforesaid plot through his GPA-defendant No.4. Defendants No.3 and 4, being attorney holders of defendants No.1 and 2 respectively, received the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,83,000/- from the plaintiff and executed receipt dated 22.3.2005 thereof. It was agreed that the defendants will get the sale deed executed and registered as and when the plaintiff asks the defendants to do so, after receiving necessary stamp and registration charges from the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has approached the defendants on many occasions to do the needful, but the defendants avoided to do so. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, in the event of failure on the part of the defendants to get the sale deed executed, plaintiff will have the right to enforce the same with the process of the Court. Plaintiff has pleaded that she always remained ready and willing to get the sale deed executed but the defendants were found lacking. A legal notice dated 11.11.2006 is shown to have been sent to the defendants, calling upon them to come present in the office of Sub Registrar on 27.11.2006. The plaintiff got her presence marked before the Sub Registrar on 27.11.2006 by means of an affidavit but the defendants did not turn up. With this background, the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction has been filed.
(2.) Defendant No.2, on appearance, took all customary objections with regard to maintainability, misjoinder, non-joinder of the necessary parties, deficiency of court fee and concealment of material facts. Defendant No.2 also submitted that at one point of time, he was the owner of plot No. 27, 11 and 13 through GPA but after that he sold the abovesaid plot to one Sh.Nirottam Chand and now he has no concern with the plot. Defendants No.3 and 4 have also taken objections in league with defendant No.2 and also submitted that the plaintiff is a property dealer and is habitual of involving simpleton persons by preparing false document of transfer of land by deceitful means and by playing fraud with the persons. It has been claimed that the husband of the plaintiff prepared false documents in favour of his wife and the defendants had never entered into agreement to sell with the plaintiff, as has been alleged in the plaint.
(3.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the defendants have entered into an agreement to sell dated 22.3.2005 OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the court OPD 6. Relief.";