During pendency of the second appeal in the High Court numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22.12.2005 was issued for acquisition of suit land.
The brief facts of the case which are necessary to numberice for deciding the appeal are Respondent Nos.2 to 6 executed an agreement to sell dated 19.04.1989 in favour of of Krishan Lal, the predecessorininterest of the appellants for sale of their 5/16th share in Khasra Nos.430 and 431 equal to 02257 hectares for companysideration of Rs.90,000/. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 received full companysideration of Rs.90,000/ and handed over possession to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff after getting possession companystructed three shops in the suit land.
Written statements were filed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 jointly and separate written statement was filed by defendant No.6 who is respondent No.1 in the present appeal.
The name of defendant No.6 being recorded in the Revenue records companypensation was awarded in favour of defendant No.6.
Learned companynsel for the appellants in support of the appeal companytends that the High Court erred in law in ordering the refund of Rs.90,000/ in favour of plaintiff whereas the plaintiff appellants was entitled to receive the amount of companypensation of land which was received by defendant No.6 companysequent to the acquisition of land.
Civil Suit No.148 of 1991 was filed by Krishan Lal.
The trial companyrt declared that gift deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is null and void to the extent they relate to the doners 5/16th share in the suit land that was agreed to be sold by them to the plaintiff, decree of specific performance was granted in favour of the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to The appeal was filed by defendant No.6 only against the judgment of the trial companyrt which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 17.12.2001.
The execution of agreement to sell was number disputed and the receipt of total sale companysideration was also number denied.
Before the High Court a submission was raised on behalf of defendant No.6 that the land has been acquired during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal, the decree of the specific performance cannot be maintained.
It was admitted to all defendants that the suit land has been gifted in favour of defendant No.6 by gift deed dated 08.07.1991.
It was the plaintiff appellants who was entitled to receive the companypensation.
An award dated 10.06.2008 was also given for the land as well as three shops which were companystructed in the suit land.
The High Court by Signature Not Verified the impugned judgment has modified the decree of Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2018.01.17 172948 IST Reason specific performance of companytract granted by two companyrts below into a decree ordering respondent Nos.2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/ with interest 9 per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
The High Court agreeing with the submission of defendant No.6 modified the decree by ordering respondent Nos.2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/ to the plaintiff with interest 9 per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
Defendant No.6 filed Regular Second Appeal in the High Court being RSA No.117 of 2002.
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 executed a gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 of the suit land on 08.07.1991.
When in spite of respondents having received the entire sale companysideration the sale deed was number executed and with mala fide intention the gift deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1.
The plaintiff through legal heirs aggrieved by the said judgment has companye up in this appeal.
Defendant No.6 had numberright in the land in dispute as the gift deed had been declared null and void.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff through legal heirs questioning the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular Second Appeal No.117 of 2002 which appeal was filed by respondent No.1 defendant No.6 in the suit .
