R. S. A. No. 952 of 2008

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R. S. A. No. 952 of 2008

Date of Decision : April 29, 2010

Amar Nath

....

Appellant

Vs.

Jai Bhagwan and others

....

Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :

Mr. J. K. Goel, Advocate

for the appellant.

Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate

for respondents no.1 to 8.

None for respondent no. 9.

* * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

By this common judgment, I am disposing of three appeals i.e.

R. S. A. No. 952 of 2008, R. S. A. No.2446 of 2008 and R. S. A. No.3224

of 2008, all filed by Amar Nath, being interconnected. R. S. A. No. 952 of

2008 and R. S. A. No.3224 of 2008 have arisen out of same Civil Suit No.

79 of 2001, whereas R. S. A. No. 2446 of 2008 has arisen out of a separate

suit No.13 of 2001/2005.

Amar Nath appellant filed Suit No.13 of 2001/2005 against

Jaimal Singh (since deceased and represented by respondents no.1 to 7) and

Phul Singh (respondent no. 8) alleging that the agreement to sell dated

R. S. A. No. 952 of 2008

2

22.09.1999 is null and void. Appellant alleged in the suit that he is owner

in possession of land measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas (suit land) being 22/544

share of 27 kanals 04 marlas land. He had sold a part of his land vide sale

deed dated 12.12.1994 to Jaimal Singh and Phul Singh (defendants in the

said suit) and Hukam Chand and at that time, since they did not have full

sale consideration, sons of Jaimal Singh borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the

appellant and executed pronote and receipt, which was also signed by

Jaimal Singh. In the year 1999, Jailmal Singh and his son Jai Bhagwan paid

Rs.8,000/- to the appellant and obtained his thumb impressions on some

papers, which were later on converted into agreement to sell, although the

appellant never agreed to sell the suit land and the said agreement is result

of fraud.

On the other hand, Jaimal Singh and Phul Singh filed Civil Suit

No. 79 of 2001 for specific performance of agreement dated 22.09.1999

alleging that Amar Nath appellant herein agreed to sell the suit land

measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas to the aforesaid plaintiffs for Rs.31,625/- vide

agreement to sell dated 22.09.1999 and received Rs.8,000/- as earnest

money. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 21.08.2000. The

aforesaid plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of

the contract, but the defendant Amar Nath (appellant herein) committed

breach of the agreement.

During pendency of Civil Suit No.79 of 2001, Amar Nath sold

the suit land to Ram Singh (respondent no.9 herein – impleaded as

defendant no.2 to the suit later on) vide sale deed dated 28.08.2001, in spite

of temporary injunction order against the appellant restraining him from

alienating the suit land.

Amar Nath – defendant no.1 in the said suit took the same

stand that agreement is forged and fabricated, as pleaded by him in his own

suit No.13 of 2001/2005. Defendant no.2 also broadly took the same stand.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, disposed of

R. S. A. No. 952 of 2008

3

both the suits vide separate judgments dated 19.02.2005. Suit filed by Amar

Nath bearing No. 13 of 2001/2005 was dismissed, whereas Suit No. 79 of

2001 filed by Jaimal Singh and Phul Singh was decreed for recovery of

Rs.8,000/- while declining the prayer for specific performance of the

agreement. Against judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.79 of

2001, both the plaintiffs and the defendants preferred separate appeals,

which were disposed of by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track

Court), Karnal, vide common judgment dated 07.06.2007. Appeal preferred

by Amar Nath and Ram Singh defendants in Civil Suit No. 79 of 2001 was

dismissed whereas appeal filed by plaintiffs of said suit i.e. Jaimal Singh

and Phul Singh was allowed and their suit was decreed for specific

performance of the agreement to