The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform, and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens to subsequent sales.

M.L. Singhal, J. - Vide order dated 18.4.1994 Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Barnala decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession through specific performance of the agreement 19.2.1988 against Shinder Singh (since deceased) now represented by his widow Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur and children Jagsir Singh and Paul Kaur, Jagjit Singh and Karamjit Singh and Amarjit Singh and Paramjit Singh, defendants on payment of the balance sale money and also for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating the land in suit i.e. 1/2 share of land measuring 56 kanals 10 marlas to any body else.

Facts

2-3. Bhag Singh filed suit for possession through specific performance against Shinder Singh (dead) now represented by his LRs Mukhtiar Kaur and others qua half share of land measuring 56 kanals 10 marlas, as detailed in the head note of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating the land in suit in any manner whatever. It is alleged in the plaint that on 19.2.1988, Shinder Singh executed an agreement to sell 1/2 share of land measuring 56 kanals 10 marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint to him at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per killa. At the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 19.2.1988 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money to Shinder Singh. Shinder Singh undertook to execute sale deed in favour of then plaintiff on or before 30.6.1988. Expenses of stamp and registration were to be borne by him (Bhag Singh). Agreement to sell was thumb marked by Shinder Singh. It was attested by Bhag Singh and Zora Singh as witnesses. It is alleged in the plaint that he has always been ready and willing to pay the remaining sale money to Shinder Singh and obtain sale deed from him. On 30.6.1988 he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar with money ready with him including the one which was required for meeting the expenses of stamp and registration. He waited for Shinder Singh upto 5.00 PM. Shinder Singh, however, did not turn up. At last, he made application to the Sub-Registrar for getting his presence marked. That application was entered at Sr. No. 235.

4. Shinder Singh (since deceased) now represented by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur etc. contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was admitted that the had executed agreement dated 19.2.1988 in favour of Bhag Singh. It was also admitted that he had received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money. It was, however, denied that on 30.6.1988, plaintiff came present in the office of Sub-Registrar. On 30.6.1988, he appeared before the Sub-Registrar but plaintiff did not turn up. As such, earnest money paid by him stood forfeited. He had been asking the plaintiff time and again to pay him the remaining sale money and obtain sale deed from him and when he failed, he sold the land to Amarjit Singh and Paramjit Singh-defendants.

5. Amarjit Singh and Paramjit Singh-defendants No. 6 and 7 contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the agreement to sell dated 19.2.1988. They are protected by the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was denied that Shinder Singh executed any agreement to sell dated 19.2.1988 in favour of Bhag Singh. It was denied that he received any amount of Rs. 10,000/- by way of earnest money. It was also denied that Bhag Singh was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale money to Shinder Singh and Shinder Singh prevaricated and ran away. It was urged that they had been cultivating this land as tenants and as such this land was sold to them by Shinder Singh.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether defendant Shinder Singh had executed sale agreement dated 19.2.1988 in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the