- (1.) Amiran widow of Hasan, her three sons Tilla, Nathi and Rupi, as also her three daughters Halima, Guna and Goras, owned 74 kanals 2 marlas of land detailed in the plaint and situated in village Kasam Bhatti, Tehsil Faridkot in equal shares. Rupi and Goras were minors in January, 1969. On 7th of January, 1969, Amiran and her six children, named above, entered into an agreement (Ex.P. 1) with the appellants to sell their land measuring 74 kanals 2 marlas in their favour for Rs. 40,000/-. Amiran acted as guardian of her two minor children Rupi and Goras. The sale deed was agreed to be executed by 15th of June, 1969. It was agreed that in case the vendors failed to execute the sale deed, the vendees could get the agreement of sale specifically enforced and in the event of the vendees backing out they were to suffer forfeiture of Rs. 1,000/- out of earnest money in the hands of the vendors. The vendors did not sell the land to the appellants and instead sold 52 kanals 18 marlas of land out of 74 kanals 2 marlas excluding the share of two minors in favour of Harpal Singh and Rup Singh, respondent Nos. 8 and 9, for Rs. 56,000/- on 24th of June, 1971. The appellants thereupon filed a suit against the vendors as also the vendees, respondent Nos. 8 and 9, for possession of land measuring 74 kanals 2 marlas through specific performance of the agreement of sale in their favour for Rs. 40,000/-.
(2.) The suit having been contested, the trial Court framed the following issues :- (1) Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 (vendors) agreed to sell the suit-land to plaintiffs (now appellants) on 1.7.1969 ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement ? (3) Whether defendant No. 2 Nathi was minor at the time of alleged agreement ? If so, to what effect ? (4) Whether the contract of specific performance can be performed against the minor defendants ? It not so, to what effect ? (5) Whether the minor defendants avoided and repudiated the alleged contract ? If so, to what effect ? (6) Whether defendant Nos. 8 and 9 (vendees) had no notice of the alleged agreement in favour of plaintiffs ? If so, to what effect ? (7) Relief. The trial Court found issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 in favour of the appellants and issue Nos. 4 and 5 against them. Holding that the relief of specific performance was discretionary, the trial Court declined to grant a decree of specific performance to the appellants and instead granted them a decree for Rs. 5500/- in their favour against vendors other than minors by way of refund of the earnest money along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 7.1.1969 till payment. It is against this order that the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
(3.) The finding of the trial Court under issue No. 1, that the vendors had agreed to sell the land in dispute to the appellants on 7.1.1969, which otherwise is correct has not been challenged. Similarly, the findings under issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 that Rupi and Goras were minors and their share in the land could not be sold for lack of permission of the Court also remain unassailed.;