Honble PALLI, J. — The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendant respondent Arjun Singh saying that the defendant-respondent agreed to sell 25 bighas of land to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- and an agreement to that effect was executed on 27.12.1962 Ex.1 on record.Rs.7,000/- were paid as earnest money and in part performance of the contract possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiffs and it was agreed that on the grant of the formal Sanad,the defendant would execute the sale-deed and ger it registered. Since the Sanad was not granted for quite some time Rs.2,000/- more were paid by the plaintiffs and again an agreement dated 20.2.1964 was executed and got registered with the stipulation that in case the defendant failed to get the sale- deed registered the plaintiffs would be entitled to get the same executed and registered through the agency of the court. The defendant having failed to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiffs served a notice asking the defendant to execute and get the sale-deed registered in their favour showing their willingness to perform their part of the contract and it was further stated that they had made several attempts to deposit balance amount of Rs.4,000/- with the Department but the Department was not accepting it by stating that the amount would be accepted only from the defendant. The present suit was, thus, filed seeking the desired reliefs.

(2). The defendant resisted the suit and claimed that the land, in fact, had been allotted to them in lieu of their claim regarding the property left by the family in Pakistan and the land does not belong to Arjun Singh alone but to the family which included his brothers and mother. The agreement to sell thus was unauthorised. It was further said that since the plaintiffs failed to deposit the sum of Rs.4,000/- with the Department, the Sanad could not be obtained and the suit in the situation was liable to be dismissed.

(3). The lower Court proceeded to examine the controversy between the parties and in this respect, on Issue No.l a finding was returned that as per Ex.A 1 and Ex.A2 i.e. the Sanad and the Order it is found that 25 bighas of land was allotted in compensation not to Arjun Singh alone but to the six brothers and their mother. On Issue No.2 the Court returned the finding that Rs.7,000/- were received by Arjun Singh and an agreement Ex.1 was executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs and in further sequence of the same the possession was delivered of the land in question to the plaintiffs. Issue No.3 was decided in the manner that Arjun Singh on 20.2.1964 accepted to have received Rs.9,000/- and entered into a fresh agreement as the Sanad had not been granted to him till then. This latter agreement Ex.2 was got registered and thus, the execution of Ex.2 was also proved and accepted. On the question of deposit of the remaining balance of Rs.4,000/- which was to be deposited with the Department and was not deposited by the plaintiffs, the Court returned. a finding that it has not been proved that the plaintiffs made any efforts to deposit this amouta of Rs.1,000/- with the Settlement Department and the evidence led to this effect that they had made several attempts to deposit the same but the Department was not accepting the payment was disbelieved. In the subsequent agreement Ex.2 it is clearly recorded that Rs.4,000/- would be deposited by the plaintiffs in the Settlement Department. The issue was decided against the plaintiffs. On the question of limitation covered under Issue No.6 a finding was returned that the suit was within time. On Issue No.7 that earlier Hukam Singh was impleaded as proforma defendant and thereafter impleaded as plaintiff, therefore, the suit in that situation was not within time was also not accepted by the Court. Since the Sanad was issued during the pendency of the case i.e. on 11.9.1974, the Court rightly decided the Issue No.7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document