- (1.) BRIEFLY stated, the factual position stated by the plaintiff -appellants in their plaint is that defendant No. 1 Puran Singh mortgaged with possession the suit land in their favour vide registered mortgage deed. Subsequently, Puran Singh defendant entered into an agreement to sell the same land with the plaintiffs on 21 -7 -1977 and obtained a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - as earnest money. The agreement to sell was executed in their favour in the presence of the witnesses.Defendant Puran Singh had agreed to execute the sale deed in their favour on 1 -61978 after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 19,255/ -. Puran Singh in contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement, sold the land to defendant No. 2 Nidhan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 8 -11 -1977 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/ -. The plaintiffs were and are still ready to perform their part of the contract whereas defendant No. 1 is avoiding the same to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant Nidhan Singh.
(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 Puran Singh appeared at the initial stage of the suit and filed his written statement wherein he admitted all the pleas of the plaintiffs. He pleaded that @page -PunjHar122 defendant No. 2 Nidhan Singh pressurised him to get the sale deed registered in his favour promising extra payment to him but at the time of the execution of the sale deed, defendant No. 2 Nidhan Singh played fraud with him and he did not pay him the promised money. He further stated in his written statement that he had made it clear to Nidhan Singh defendant No. 2 that he had already entered into an agreement to sell this land in favour of the plaintiffs and this fact of the agreement to sell with the plaintiffs was known to the whole of the village but defendant No. 2 openly declared that he would take forcible possession of the land if he got the sale deed registered in his name. He further stated in his reply that the suit was not maintainable in the present form as now he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs if the Court gave him the sanction for the execution of the same. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 absented himself and was proceeded ex parte. It is pertinent to note here that before the framing of the issues, the trial Court recorded the statement of both Puran Singh defendant No. 1 and Nidhan Singh defendant No. 2 on oath on solemn affirmation. Puran Singh defendant No. 1 had stated before the trial Court that he had entered into an agreement to sell the land with Joginder Singh plaintiff. The whole of the village knew about the agreement. Defendant No. 2 Nidhan Singh had promised him that he would give him more money and that he should get the land registered in his name but later he did not give him more money as promised. He had told Nidhan Singh defendant No. 2 that he had entered into an agreement to sell the land to Joginder Singh but Nidhan Singh told him that he would take forcible possession of the land. The suit was contested by defendant No. 2. It was stated by him in his written statement that no doubt the land was mortgaged with possession with the plaintiffs, but the alleged agreement to sell dated 21 -7 -1977 was fictitious and fake document and the same was vague. The agreement, according to defendant No. 2, was without consideration and unenforceable. It was further stated by him in the written statement that defendant No. 1 Puran Singh sold the suit land to him for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/ - through registered sale deed dated 8 -11 -1977 and he was not aware of any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs. He was a bona fide purchaser for consideration without any notice of the agreement.
(3.) THE replication was filed on behalf of the appellants wherein the contentions raised by defendant No. 2 in his written statement were denied. The following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties : - 1. Whether the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with the plaintiff on 21 -7 -1977? OPP 2. Whether the agreement of sale dated 217 -1977 is fictitious and fake transaction as alleged? OPD 3. Whether defendant No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice of earlier agreement with the plaintiff? OPD 4. Whether the agreement dated 21 -7 -1977 is vague, without consideration and unenforceable? OPD -2. 5. Whether the plaint has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 6. Whether defendant No. 2 had effected any improvements in the property in dispute after the purchases ? If so, of what value and to what effect? OPD 7. Whether defendant No. 2 is entitled to the sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/ - besides a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - spent by him for registration expenses etc.? OPD -2. 8. Relief. ;