Judgment

1. Dalip Singh, Defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') was the owner of land measuring 69 kanals 10 marlas situated in the area of village Bichhnari, District Gohana in the State of Haryana. He entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land on 25.5.1987 with Mehar Singh Rathee, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (for short the 'Respondent No. 1') for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-. As per agreement the sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.7.1987. Appellant was required to obtain clearance certificate from the income tax department for the sale of the suit land and also to get mutation of the land sanctioned in his favour before the execution of the sale deed because he had received the land through a civil court decree in Civil Suit No. 122 dated 19.3.1984 titled Dalip Vs. Sarti. The date for execution of the sale deed was extended by mutual agreement on 18.7.1987 to 25.8.1987.

2. It came to the knowledge of respondent No. 1 that the appellant was trying to sell the property to respondent nos. 2 to 4. He issued registered A/D notices dated 17.8.1987, 19.8.1987, 20.8.1987 and telegram dated 19.8.1987 calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement to sell. Appellant did not give any reply to the same nor did he give any information as to whether he had obtained the income tax clearance certificate and got sanctioned the mutation in his name. On 24.8.1987 it came to the knowledge of the respondent No. 1 that appellant had purchased three stamp papers of the value of Rs. 3,250/-, Rs. 3,250/- and Rs. 6,000/-for selling the land to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 25.8.1987 along with balance consideration for execution of the sale deed but the appellant did not come to execute the said sale deed.

3. Apprehending that the appellant may sell the land to some one else, Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Gohana praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from selling the property to any other person and for mandatory injunction directing him to execute the sale deed in his favour only.

4. On 23.11.1987 respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 25.5.1987 in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat. On 10.12.1987 respondent No. 1 withdrew the suit for permanent injunction filed in the court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Gohana as he had already file a suit for specific performance. The trial Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn and passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the plaintiff has made his statement that he withdraws his suit as the party has filed the suit for specific performance at Sonepat. In view of his statement, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

5. On 8.3.1988 appellant filed a written statement in the suit for specific performance contending inter alia that the Court of Senior sub-Judge at Sonepat did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. On 20.3.1989 the Court at Sonepat returned the plaint to respondent No. 1 for presentation before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction. Immediately after the return of the plaint respondent No. 1 presented the plaint in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Gohana on 21.3.1989.

6. The suit land was sold by the appellant to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 through a registered sale deed on 22.3.1988. Respondent No. 1 moved an application for amendment of the plaint seeking impleadment to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the sons and daughters of the appellant as Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 being necessary parties and also seeking amendment in the plaint including the relief clause. Additional prayer for declaration that the sale deed dated 22.3.1988 executed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as null and void and not binding on him was made.

7. Upon notice the appellant