RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J - (1.) PLAINTIFF is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1995 passed by the first Appellate Court.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance alleging therein that he is in possession of agricultural land measuring 101 Kanals 18 Marlas situated at village Salpani Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar as 'Gair Marusi' tenant. Defendants No. 1 to 4 were the owners of the suit land who executed an agreement dated 21.7.1983 to sell the land measuring 48 Kanals 19 Marlas being half share of land measuring 97 Kanals 18 Marlas, to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 9406/- was paid as earnest money and date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 21.11.1983 on payment of remaining sale consideration. Regarding other half share of 97 Kanals 18 marlas, defendants No. 1 to 4 also executed an agreement to sell in favour of Mela Ram son of Bahadur Ram, son of the plaintiff. It was claimed in the plaint that plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and was present in the office of Sub Registrar, Thanesar on 21.11.1983 but the defendants did not turn up, therefore, he got his presence marked with the Sub Registrar and also got attested one affidavit in that regard. It was further claimed in the plaint that defendants No. 1 to 3 sold land measuring 62 Kanals 12 Marlas to defendants No. 5 to 8 in the form of four separate sale deeds dated 2.1.1984, three were registered on 4.1.1984 and fourth on 18.4.1984 comprising land measuring 15 Kanals 13 Marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 14,600/- each. The aforesaid sale deeds were executed in the names of individual defendants No. 5 to 8. Defendants No. 1 to 4 executed another sale deed dated 2.1.1984 registered on 14.8.1986 regarding other land measuring 35 Kanals 5 Marlas for sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of defendant No. 9 in pursuance of Civil Court decree dated 8.4.1986 passed by Sr. Sub Judge, Kurukshetra in suit titled as Smt. Richhpal Kaur v. Smt. Surjit Kaur etc. In that decree dated 8.4.1986, a previous sale deed dated 24.7.1984 of land measuring 20 Kanals 8 Marlas earlier executed by Smt. Jagiro in favour of plaintiff was declared null and void. Therefore, it was claimed that suit for specific performance of Smt. Richhpal Kaur, defendant No. 9 which culminated into impugned decree dated 8.4.1986 was illegal and without merit and the subsequent agreement and sale deeds were alleged to be null and void in view of previously existing agreement of sale dated 21.7.1983 in favour of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that defendants No. 5 to 9 were in the knowledge of existence of agreement to sell dated 21.7.1983 but in spite of that, they got the agreement executed on 12.12.1983 as well as five sale deeds from defendants No. 1 to 4. In the suit, defendants No. 1 to 4 were proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court, however, the suit was contested by defendants No. 5 to 9 through their general attorney who filed joint written statement in which it was pleaded that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; that suit is not maintainable against Chadat Singh, who was a minor; that defendants No. 5 to 9 were bona fide purchasers for consideration of the suit land and the possession of the purchased land was handed over to them by the vendors, therefore, plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was never a tenant over the suit land and the alleged tenancy has not been accepted upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was claimed that originally the plaintiff was inducted as a lessee on the suit land by the Collector and after the expiry of period of lease, he has relinquished the possession in writing and had delivered the same to the original owners. It was claimed that plaintiff had left the possession after the crop of Rabi 1982 after that defendants No. 5 to 9 asserted themselves to be in physical possession of the suit land. Agreement dated 21.7.1983 by defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff was denied and it was averred that they have purchased another land from the defendants, bona fide enquiries were made and even if the agreement dated 21.7.1983 is proved to have been executed by defendants No. 1 to 4, the plaintiff never remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract as he was not possessing sufficient funds. It was pleaded that sale deed dated 2.1.1984 was got registered from defendants No. 1 to 4 on 8.4.1986 pursuant to Civil Court decree whereby the previous sale deed dated 24.7.1984 of land measuring 20 Kanals 8 Marlas in favour of Bahadur Ram was declared null and void, being not binding on the rights of Richhpal Kaur, defendant No. 9.
(3.) IN replication, the plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied those of the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 4 entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff on 21.7.1983 in respect of the suit land ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract ? OPP. 3. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 4 have received a sum of Rs. 9406/- as earnest money towards sale consideration and if so its effect ? OPP. 4. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 4 have committed the breach of contract ? OPP. 5. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 4 have further transferred the suit land in favour of defendants No. 5 to 9 in contravention of the agreement dated 21.7.1983 and if so its effect ? OPD. 6. Whether the defendants No. 5 to 9 are bona fide purchasers for value, without notice and as such sales in their favour are protected under Section 41 of T.P. Act ? OPD. 7. If issue No. 6 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the return of earnest money ? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 9. Whether the defendants No. 6 is a minor and if so its effect ? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD. 11. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit ? OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiff stands ejected from the suit land and if so its effect ? OPD. 13. Relief. ;