It has been found by all the companyrts that the agreement entered into by the first respondent with Kare was a true and genuine document and the first respondent had paid Rs.8,000/ as advance.
Thereafter, the first respondent filed an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial companyrt.
The appellants, who were defendants 5 to 8 in the suit, claimed title over the property.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit on the ground that by virtue of the decree dated 1.10.1987 passed in favour of defendants 2 to 4, they had become the owners of the property and so long as that decree was number challenged by the first respondent plaintiff in any proceedings, he was number entitled to seek specific relief of the companytract entered into by him with Kare.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate companyrt, the present appellants filed a Second Appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh.
Therefore, the first respondent was companystrained to file a suit for specific performance.
They alleged that on 20.10.1986 they had entered into an agreement with Kare for the sale of the property for Rs.32,000/ per acre.
35,000/ per acre and an agreement was entered into between these two parties on 8.12.1986.
7 Kanals and 4 Marlas of property was sold in favour of appellants 1 to 3 by defendants 2 and 3 and an extent of 15 Kanals and 6 Marlas was transferred to appellants 1 to 3 by defendants 2 to 4.
It is against that judgment of the High Court, the present appeal is filed.
They admitted having executed subsequently four sale deeds in favour of defendants 5 to 8 in respect of a portion of the suit property.
It is pertinent to numbere that Kare executed a Family Settlement in favour of his children, defendants 2 to 4 and immediately thereafter, defendants 2 to 4 filed a suit for declaration of the title over the property.
The first respondent disputed the genuineness of the agreement entered into between Kare and the present appellants.
Two other documents were also executed by defendants 2 to 4.
In respect of the suit property, four sale deeds were executed by defendants 2 to 4.
Kare, however, did number execute the sale deed, but transferred the property in favour of his children and when the appellants insisted for enforcement of the said agreement, the children of Kare honoured the same by executing the four sale deeds and handed over the possession of the property.
It is clearly a companylusive decree obtained by defendants 2 to 4.
Defendants 2 to 4, who are the children of Kare, also filed a written statement alleging that there was a Family Settlement whereby the properties were given to them and that after the Family Settlement, they had filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and a decree was passed in their favour on 1.10.1987.
The first respondent plaintiff, thereupon impleaded the children of Kare as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit and they are respondents 3 to 5 herein.
Both these documents were executed on the same day, i.e. 4.9.1989.
It was also proved that Kare had companymitted a breach of the companytract and failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the first respondent.
Therefore, it was companytended by the companynsel for the appellants that Kare had executed the subsequent agreement with the first respondent plaintiff with a view to defeat the interest of the appellants.
Therefore, the appellants were impleaded as defendants 5 to 8 in the suit.
The second respondent, Kare, who was the sole defendant in the suit, filed a written statement companytending that he was number the real owner of the property and that it belonged to his children.
It was urged that Kare had executed the Family Settlement Deed in favour of his children to see that the appellants did number get the benefit of the agreement entered into by them with Kare.
We heard learned companynsel for the appellants, Mrs. Madhu Tewatia and learned senior companynsel for the first respondent, Shri M.L. Verma.
The appellants companytended that the first respondent was number entitled to the decree for specific relief.
The total companysideration for the sale deed executed in favour of appellants 1 to 3 was Rs.76,500/ , but an amount of Rs.60,000/ was retained by the vendees as mortgage amount payable to the mortgagee.
The appellate companyrt reversed the decree and held that the agreement entered into by the first respondent with Kare was a true and genuine document that the Family Settlement as also the decree passed by the civil companyrt in favour of defendants 2 to 4 were companylusive transactions and that defendants 2 to 4 had numberright to alienate the property.
It was further held that such alienation in favour of defendants 5 to 8 had been made after the filing of the suit by the first respondent plaintiff and they are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
He denied the thumb impression found on the agreement for sale.
Kare, who was a defendant in the suit, did number companytest the suit and the decree was passed in favour of defendants 2 to 4.
Learned companynsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, companytended that the agreement entered into by the first respondent with Kare was a true and genuine document and Kare had executed the Family Settlement to defeat the interests of the first respondent.
However, Kare did number execute the sale deed as promised by him.
It was further submitted that the decree obtained by defendants 2 to 4 against Kare was a companylusive decree.
The first respondent paid an amount of Rs.8,000/ to Kare on the date of the agreement and Kare had to execute the sale deed by 25th May 1987, but this date was further extended upto 15th June, 1987.
However, the trial companyrt allowed the recovery of the advance amount paid by the first respondent.
Counsel for the appellants companytended that the agreement entered into by the first respondent Plaintiff with Kare was on 8.12.1986 and this was subsequent to the agreement entered into by the appellants with Kare, which was on 20.10.1986.
The first respondent agreed to purchase the land from Kare for a companysideration of Rs.
He also alleged that he had mortgaged the property in favour of one Gopal.
The first respondent plaintiff later came to know that the children of Kare had effected certain alienation in favour of the appellants herein.
The first defendant Kare, though admitted the agreement, alleged that he never intended to execute a sale deed in favour of the first respondent plaintiff, but only a mortgage.
LITTTTTTTJ G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Defendants 5 to 8 in a suit for specific performance are the appellants herein.
The first respondent plaintiff, Deep Chand filed a suit for specific performance against the second respondent, Kare, who was the owner of the suit property measuring 26 Kanals and 2 Marlas situated in Village Prithla of Faridabad District.
The companynsel for the appellants companytended that when defendants 2 to 4 executed the sale deeds in favour of the appellants, they acquired a valid title over the property on the basis of the decree passed by the civil companyrt on 1.10.1987 and, therefore, all the alienations are valid and the appellants are bonafide purchasers for value.
