Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 11973-C of 2012 :

1. For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of six days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.

C.M. No. 11974-C of 2012 :

2. Allowed as prayed for.

C. M. No. 11975-C of 2012 :

3. Allowed as prayed for.

Main Appeal :

4. Legal representatives of defendants no.2 and 3, having lost in both the courts below, are in second appeal.

5. Suit was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff Jeet Singh against proforma respondents no.3 and 4 as defendants no.1 and 4, against predecessors of appellants as defendants no.2 and 3 and against respondent no.2 Darshan Kaur as defendant no.5. Defendants no.1 to 4 (including predecessors of the appellants) were impleaded being legal heirs of Rachna Ram (since deceased).

6. Case of the plaintiff is that Rachna Ram agreed to sell the suit land measuring 08 bighas to the plaintiff for Rs.4 lacs and received Rs.3,75,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 04.05.1999 and also delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Sale deed was to be executed up to 15.06.2000. Rachna Ram died about 8-9 months prior to the filing of the instant suit, which was filed on 26.07.2000 i.e. died before the date stipulated in the agreement for execution of the sale deed. Defendants no.1 to 4 inherited the suit land as legal heirs of Rachna Ram. They started negotiating for alienating the suit land to strangers. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit on 07.02.2000 for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating the suit land to anybody else. During pendency of the said suit, defendants no.1 to 4 sold the suit land to defendant no.5 vide sale deed dated 23.05.2000. Consequently, the plaintiff withdrew the injunction suit on 24.07.2000 and filed the instant suit on 26.07.2000 seeking specific performance of the impugned agreement. It was pleaded that defendant no.5 also had knowledge of the impugned agreement and is, therefore, bound by the same. Moreover, sale deed in favour of defendant no.5 is also hit by doctrine of lis pendens having been executed during pendency of the injunction suit. The plaintiff alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendants committed breach thereof.

7. Defendants no.1 to 4 appeared in the trial court, but did not file any written statement, and therefore, their defence was struck off.

8. Defendant no.5 contested the suit and broadly controverted the plaint averments. It was denied that Rachna Ram agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and executed agreement dated 04.05.1999. It was pleaded that defendant no.5 is bona fide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration from defendants no.1 to 4 without knowledge of the alleged agreement as well as of the injunction suit. Sale deed of the suit land in favour of defendant no.5 executed by defendants no.1 to 4 is legal and valid.

9. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiff’s suit. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendants no.2 and 3 have filed this second appeal.

10. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

11. As noticed herein before, defence of predecessors of the appellants was struck off, as they did not file written statement. Thus, plaintiff’s version and evidence stands unrebutted qua the appellants. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove his case. He has examined both the attesting witnesses as well as Scribe of the agreement, besides himself stepping into the witness-box. All of them have stated according to the plaintiff’s version. There is practically no rebuttal of the said cogent evidence led by the plaintiff. Only husband and attorney of defendant no.5 – subsequent vendee appeared in the witness box, but obviously he could have no knowledge of the facts leading to the execution of the impugned agreement. None of defendants no.1 to 4