The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a valid oral agreement for the sale of land, leading to the dismissal of their suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Defendants are in appeal. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as defendants and respondents as plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of oral agreement to sell dated 06.07.1986. Further prayer was for declaring sale deeds dated 15.09.1986 executed in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 as null and void.

3. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit land as described in the head note of the plaint. The land is situated in the revenue estate of village Naggal Faizgarh, Tehsil Kharar, whereas defendant No.1 was residing at village Manakpur, Tehsil Kharar for last 40 years with one Gurdial Singh s/o Beant Singh being unmarried and issueless. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 agreed to sell land in favour of plaintiffs on 06.07.1986, when the plaintiffs alongwith their father visited house of Gurdial Singh. It was an oral agreement to sell. The total sale consideration of land was agreed to be Rs.15,000/-. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, sale deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs on 17.07.1986 on the stamp papers purchased by defendant No.1 with money paid by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 and the witnesses thumb marked the sale deed. While plaintiff-Swaran Singh and his father Gian Singh were presenting the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, defendant No.1 went missing. They came to know that Gurbachan Singh s/o Raunaq Singh and Sher Singh s/o Waryam Singh nephews of defendant No.1 have enticed defendant No.1 away from the Tehsil premises. Defendant No.1 did not appear before the Sub-Registrar and the sale deed could not be registered.

4. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs remained ready and willing with the consideration amount to get the sale deed executed and are still ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. Thus are entitled for decree of specific performance. Defendants No.2 to 6 despite having notice of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs, purchased the suit land from defendant No.1 vide two sale deeds dated 15.09.1986. Both the sale deeds being hit by the doctrine of lis pendence have no bearing on the rights of the plaintiffs.

5. Suit was resisted by the defendants. Defendant No.1 in his written statement denied agreement to sell dated 06.07.1986. It was claimed that defendant No.1, being issueless was residing with Gurdial Singh and was under his undue influence. On 17.07.1986, he was brought to the office of Sub-Registrar by Gurdial Singh. On the asking of Gurdial Singh, he thumb marked certain papers. On inquiry, Gurdial Singh told him that the same were to execute chakotanama (lease deed) of the suit land in favour of father of the plaintiffs. In the meantime, nephews of defendant No.1 Gurbachan Singh and Shamsher Singh came on the spot. They apprised defendant No.1 that on the pretext of executing lease deed, Gurdial Singh was being made to sell his land. Hearing this, defendant No.1 came back with them. He never wanted to sell his land.

6. Separate written statement was filed by defendants No.2 to 6 claiming that they were never in the knowledge of any transaction with respect to the land between plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and are bonafide purchasers.

7. On the basis of the pleadings with the parties, suit filed by the plaintiffs was put to trial by the Court framing following issues:-

“1. Whether the defendant No.1 entered into an oral agreement dated 6.7.1986 with the plaintiffs? OPP.

2. Whether defendant executed sale deed dated 17.7.1986 under the oral agreement dated 6.7.1986, if so its effect? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? OPP.

4. Whether plaintiffs in the alternative are entitled to recovery of 15,000/- from the defendant by way of damages? OPP.

5. Whether the sale deeds dated 15.9.1986 are illegal, null and void, as alleged,