- (1.) Vide this judgment, three Regular First Appeals (Nos. 72, 73 and 74 of 1986) are for disposal. R.F.A. No. 72 of 1986 has arisen out or Suit No. 530 of 1984 for specific performance of agreement dated Senior 7, 1967 brought by Narinder Kumar and others which was dismissed. RFA No. 73 of 1986 has arisen out of Suit No. 551 of 1978. The suit was for declaration which was dismissed. RFA No. 74 of 1986 has arisen out of Suit No. 1526 of 1984 brought by Manisubrat Dass Jain (M.D. Jain) for mandatory injunction which was subsequently amended for possession. This suit was also dismissed. The trial Court decided the three suits aforesaid by one judgment.
(2.) It necessary to refer to some broad facts regarding which there is not much dispute. The pleadings of the parties in fact revolve around those facts. M/s. Faquir Chand Phool Chand owned land in Kasba Karnal. A partnership was entered into between them and Narinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar and Vajinder Kumar, sons of R.S. Jogi Dass Jain. On a portion of the land, a rice mill was constructed as the partnership was to run the business of rice mill. On some portion of the remaining land, rice was to be dried. After some time, finding that partnership business was not being run harmoniously, it was decided to dissolve the partnership. An agreement in this respect was entered into on November 24, 1964. Faquir Chand and Phool Chand were to go out of the partnership business. The land under the rice mill, the building and the machinery and the land used for drying paddy was to be sold to Narinder Kumar and other partners. Land under the building was to be sold on instalments to be paid within five years whereas the land used for drying paddy was to be sold on instalments to be paid within ten years. Some price was also fixed. Thereafter, another agreement was entered into on December 26, 1965. Vide this agreement, the partnership firm was to be dissolved with effect from 31.3.1966 and thereafter Narinder Kumar and others were to become owners of the building etc. The land under the building and the land used for drying paddy was to remain with them on the same terms and conditions which were incorporated in the agreement dated November 23, 1964. Ultimately, the matter went to the Court and a compromise was filed therein which is dated August 29, 1967. Faqir Chand and Phool Chand agreed to sell the land under the rice mill and another piece of land to be used for drying paddy to M.D. Jain. The said piece of land measured 12 Bighas 16 Biswas and 12 Biswansis. Narinder Kumar and others were to use this piece of land for drying paddy as allowed by M.D. Jain, instead of the land which was earlier being used. In compliance with the said agreement, some instalments were paid to M/s. Phool Chand Faquir Chand. Ultimately, the sale deed was executed in respect of the property agreed to be sold in favour of M.D. Jain, his wife and children on his asking on October 13, 1976.
(3.) On March 2, 1974 M.D. Jain and others, in whose favour sale deed was executed by Faquir Chand and Phool Chand, filed the suit which was ultimately amended as suit for possession by removal of malba and for mandatory injunction directing he defendants Narinder Kumar & others to deliver possession of the land including land measuring 12 Bighas 16 Biswas and 12 Biswansis, by removing their belongings and construction on the land claiming themselves to be the owners having purchased the same. Surinder Kumar Jain defendant, being the real brother-in-law of M.D. Jain plaintiff and other defendants, his brother, had approached the plaintiff for granting permission to them for drying paddy of their rice mill in the land and the plaintiff permitted them to do so. The licence having been revoked, the plaintiffs were entitled to get back the possession. Narinder Kumar and others contested the suit inter alia alleging partnership with Faqir Chand and Phool Chand and on its dissolution they were in possession of the rice mill as well as the land on which paddy was to be dried on lease at the rate of Rs. 150/- per bigha. They had agreed to purchase the land in 5 years and 10 years, as noticed above. In the suit for dissolution of partnership, when compromise agreement was entered into, M.D. Jain was introduced as a benamindar. In fact, the defendants were to purchase the land under the rice mill as well as the land over which paddy was to be dried. Some of the instalments under the agreement were paid by them. It was stipulated in the agreement that the sale deed would be executed in favour of the nominees of M.D. Jain and he had given affidavits on July 25, 1969 and January 25, 1971 undertaking to get the sale deed executed in favour of Narinder Kumar and others. Several issues having been framed, ultimately the suit was dismissed.;