Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manmohan Saroop, Advocate with Mr. Dalel Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Civil Suit N: T-169 of 1983/1984 filed by the plaintiffs-Anil Kumar Mehta and Parwin Kumar (appellants herein), seeking decree for specific performance of agreement, was decreed in their favour by the Court of Ld. Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar on 20.09.1986. However, in the appeal (CA N: T-239/1986/1989) filed by contesting defendant - Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No.l herein), the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside by Appellate Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Ropar. Accepting the appeal, the suit was dismissed on 19.09.1989. It is against the said judgment and decree dated 19.09.1989 of the First Appellate Court that the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

Admitted Facts:

3. Karnail Singh and Jamail Singh sons of Bachan Singh, to the extent of 2/3rd share; defendant No. 1 Sukhwinder Singh along with his mother Ranjit Kaur, sister-Baljit Kaur and brother Kuldeep Singh to the extent of remaining l/3rd equal share, were the co-owners in possession of the land measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas comprised in Khasra No.4628, situated in the area of Village Morinda, Tehsil and District Rupnagar. The share of defendant No. 1-Sukhwinder Singh, who was minor at the relevant time, was l/12th share. All these co-sharers entered into an agreement to sell the entire land measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas in favour of plaintiffs-Anil Kumar Mehta and Parwin Kumar vide an agreement dated 05.05.1981 at the rate of Rs. 700/- per biswa and received an amount of Rs. 5000/- as earnest money. The said agreement, on behalf of minor defendant-Sukhwinder Singh was executed by her mother/guardian Smt. Ranjit Kaur. In the agreement, it was stipulated that sale deed in respect of minor the share shall be executed after obtaining requisite permission from the Guardian Court by Smt. Ranjit Kaur. Later on, the sale deed in respect of 11/12th share was executed by the co-sharers in favour of plaintiff No.2-Parwin Kumar and Smt. Renu Mehta wife of plaintiff No.l vide sale deed dated 22.05.1981 for consideration of Rs. 20,530/- and earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- was adjusted in the sale consideration. The remaining sale consideration of Rs. 5,530/- was paid before the Sub-Registrar. As stipulated in the agreement, Smt. Ranjit Kaur applied under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 [for short 'the Guardianship Act'] to obtain permission of the Guardian Court to execute sale deed in respect of the minor's share. Said permission was granted on 06.09.1981.

Case of Plaintiffs:

4. Plaintiffs brought the suit for specific performance against minor-Sukhwinder Singh through his mother/guardian Ranjit Kaur by alleging that despite grant of permission by the Guardian Court, said defendant instead of executing sale deed in their favour as per the agreement, had executed an agreement regarding 1/12 share on 19.06.1982 in favour of defendant No.2 -Rattan Chand (respondent No.2 herein through his LRs) at the rate of Rs. 4300/-per biswas. Said agreement in favour of defendant No.2-Rattan Chand was alleged to be null and void. Plaintiffs sought the agreement dated 05.05.1981 in their favour to be specifically enforced by executing the sale deed in their favour in terms of the agreement, by submitting that plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract; whereas, defendants had failed to do so.

Stand of defendants:

5.1 Defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. As per defendant No.l-Sukhwinder Singh, there was no subsisting agreement and even if there was any, the same was illegal and void. He pleaded further that a private partition had already been effected amongst the co-sharers on 15.06.1980 and the memorandum of partition was reduced in writing on 31.12.1980. He pleaded further that he was not bound by any agreement to sell, as it was against his interest, because the pr