Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 2752-C-2016

Applicant-appellant seeks condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal.

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, instant application is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

RSA No. 1006 of 2016

Instant regular second appeal, at the hands of plaintiff, is directed against the judgment of reversal, whereby first appeal filed by the defendant-respondent was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by learned trial court in para 1 of its judgment, are as under:-

“Plaintiff’ s version is that defendant is widow of Late S. Sewa Singh his brother, who was the owner of 1/10 share in the land measuring 4K-I0M fully detailed in the head note. Sewa Singh was the joint owner in possession along with him and others. Sewa Singh had raised construction over his portion. On 31.07.1988 Sewa Singh executed an agreement to sell his share in the suit property in his favour in the presence of witnesses for total sale consideration of Rs.3500/- which was paid at that time of execution of agreement and possession of the same was also delivered to him by S. Sewa Singh at that time. Unfortunately Sewa Singh expired on 04.02.1989. After the death of Sewa Singh, there was a family arrangement and as per that he was put into possession of three Biswas Kachha of the suit property being approximately total area which fell to his share and Sewa Singh out of the suit land. Since then he is in possession of 1/5th share in the suit property and the share of Sewa Singh also forms part of the suit land in his possession. Plaintiff raised construction over the same by spending huge amount and is using the same as his residence. His possession over the suit property is peaceful, without any interference or interruption from any side. When he requested the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour, she refused. Defendant being only legal heir and successor in interest of late S. Sewa Singh is bound to honour the agreement executed by Sewa Singh in his favour. In the month of May 2002, defendant came to the suit property and threatened to dispossess him from the suit property and that she shall sell the suit property after getting entered the mutation in her name to some one else. The defendant along with her henchmen tried to dispossess him from the suit property forcibly and illegally but could not succeed and while going she threatened to dispossess him from the suit property.”

3. Defendant-respondent was put to notice and she filed her written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiff. After completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed following issues:-

1. Whether late Sewa Singh executed agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement dated 31.7.1988 as detailed in the head note of plaint? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether present suit is not maintainable?OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether suit is time barred?OPD

7. Whether suit is not properly valued?OPD

8. Relief?

4. In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant, vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2013.

5. Feeling aggrieved, defendant-respondent filed an appeal which came to be allowed by learned first appellate court, vide impugned judgment dated 7.8.2015, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Henc