- (1.) This judgment will also dispose of R.S.A. No. 2531 of 1982 because the facts are common in both the cases.
(2.) Krishan Lal (defendant No. 2 in the suit) acquired the suit land through a preemption decree. The amount for the said decree was paid by Sardara Singh (defendant No. 1 in the suit). That being so, in the year 1959 Sardara Singh along with one Sajjan Singh entered into an agreement for purchase of the said property with Krishan Lai defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. A sum of Rs. 4332/- was paid at the time of agreement on 5th of March, 1959. The balance amount of Rs. 668/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Possession of the land was to be given to the purchasers after obtaining the same from the vendees in the pre-emption suit filed by Krishan Lal. Later on, there was some dispute between the parties, i.e. between Sardara Singh and Krishan Lal and the matter was thus referred to the two arbitrators i.e. Shri Faqir Chand and Shri Bansi Lal, each appointed by both the parties to give their award. Consequently, award dated 24-2-65 was given in favour of Sardara Sjngh. According to the said award the possession of the land was with Sardara Singh and the amount of Rs. 5,000/- the sale price had already been paid by Sardara Singh to Krishan Lal and. therefore, Krishan Lal will execute the sale deed in favour of Sardara Singh. The said award was got registered on 8-6-65. Subsequent thereto it was made rule of the Court on 30-7-66 vide order copy Exhibit D-5. Appeal against the said order was dismissed on 27-7-1967 vide copy Exhibit D.4. When the award was made a rule of the Court a decree was passed in terms thereof to the effect that "I grant a decree for the specific performance of the agreement of sale on payment of Rs. 5,000/- already paid in favour of the petitioner i.e. Sardara Singh and against the respondent No. 1, i.e. Krishan Lal with costs". In spite of the award being made the rule of the Court in the above said terms, Krishan Lal vide sale deed dated 6-3-65 sold half of the land which was the subject matter of the agreement of sale to Sajjan Singh and got the same pre-empted by his sons Mohan Lal and Madan Lal (the plaintiffs in the suit) and Sajjan Singh suffered a consent decree against him. On the strength of the said compromise decree in favour of said Mohan Lal and Madan Lal they filed the present suit for one-half share against Sardara Singh impleading their father Krishan Lal also as defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant Sardara Singh has entered into the possession of the suit property basing his title on certain purchases arid had also secured an entry in column No. 10 of the Jamabandi 1963-64 (Billa Lagan Battassawar Bai) but there was no sale deed as yet in his favour and his possession on the suit land was that of a tress-passer. It was further stated that Sardara Singh defendant claims to have obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale against Krishan Lal defendant but that as it may be the plaintiffs are not bound by any such decree as they were not parties thereto. Hence, they are entitled to the joint possession thereof along with defendant Sardara Singh in the present suit.
(3.) Sardara Singh defendant controverted the allegations made by the plaintiffs. He pleaded that Krishan Lal had contracted to sell the land in question to him vide agreement of sale dated 5-3-59; Krishan Lal had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as consideration thereof from him; Krishan Lal had been evading the registration of the sale deed in his favour although the latter had been put in possession of the land in question in pursuance of the terms of the said agreement; that the name of Sajjan Singh as a covendee was got incorporated as Benamidar whereas the entire consideration was paid by him i.e, Sardara Singh and the said matter has already been settled by the arbitrators in their award dated 24-2-65 which has also been made the rule of the Court vide order dated 30-7-66 in which it has been held that Dr. Sajjan Singh was included in the agreement of sale fictitiously and it was Sardara Singh who was the real purchaser of the land in question. Thus, in these circumstances, when there was already an award against Krishan Lal dated 24-2-65, any sale made by him subsequent thereto on 6-3-65 in favour of Sajjan Singh was illegal, fictitious and collusive. Krishan Lal had no right, title or interest in the suit land at that time after having received the entire amount of Rs. 5,000/- from Sardara Singh. It was denied that the possession of the defendant Sardara Singh was that of a trespasser. He was in possession of the suit land in pursuance of the agreement in his own right. Any decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs against Sajjan Singh was of no consequence, as regard the rights of the defendant Sardara Singh. The trial Court came to the conclusion that till the time sale by Krishan Lal was made in favour of Sajjan Singh, 6-3-65, the award had not been made a rule of the Court and, therefore, Krishan Lal was fully competent to dispose the land in favour of Sajjan Singh. The trial Court also found that the defendant Sardara Singh has not become owner of the suit land as claimed by him. Consequently the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit on 10-8-1977. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge found that "the view taken by the trial Court that the award, till it has been made a rule of the Court is a wasted paper is, therefore, erroneous and incorrect. So far as Krishan Lal and Sardara Singh were concerned the award dated 8-6-65 was binding upon them though it had not been made a rule of the Court. Legally Krishan Lal could not sell his land after the announcement of this award and the sale, if any, that might have been made by him after this award, would not be binding on Sardara Singh." However, according to the learned Additional District Judge, Krishan Lal had effected the sale in favour of Sajjan Singh before the announcement of the award which according to the learned lower appellate Court was 8-6-65 whereas the sale deed executed by Krishan Lal in favour of Sajjan Singh was dated 6-3-65. In view of this, the decree of the trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiff was maintained.;