In order to appreciate the companytroversy involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.
They averred that they purchased the suit property from Amar Nath pursuant to the agreement, which they had entered into with him somewhere in the year 1978.
During the pendency of the civil suit, Kulwant Rai Plaintiff No.1 , Amar Nath defendant No.1 and Yashpal Mittal defendant No.2 died and, therefore, their legal representatives, on whom the right to sue devolved as detailed above, were brought on record in places of the original plaintiff defendants in the civil suit to enable them to companytinue the lis on behalf of those who died.
2 and 3 was bad in law inasmuch as the same was obtained by a companylusion so as to deprive the plaintiffs of the fruits of their agreement dated 12.06.1979.
It was alleged that defendant No.1 Amar Nath instead of selling the suit property to the plaintiffs in terms of agreement dated 12.06.1979 sold it to defendant Nos.
2 and 3 on 27.11.1981.
The plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the First Appellate Court.
It was also held that the suit property was Joint Hindu family property and Amar Nath was its Karta.
The suit was founded on the agreement dated 12.06.1979 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 Amar Nath for sale of the suit property for a sum of Rs.46,000/. According to the plaintiffs, they paid a sum of Rs.5,000/ by way of earnest money to defendant No.1 Amar Nath and the sale deed in relation to the suit property was to be executed on or before 31.12.1979 by defendant No.1 Amar Nath in favour of the plaintiffs on paying the balance companysideration before the subRegistrar.
Defendant No.1 Amar Nath died and, therefore, he companyld number file his written statement.
By judgment decree dated 15.04.1993, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit.
The First Appellate Court held that the sale deed executed by Late Amar Nath in favour of defendant Nos.
2 and 3 were number bona fide purchaser of the suit property.
2 and 3 on a higher price and, therefore, the plaintiffs were companystrained to file the suit for seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 12.06.1979.
So far as defendant Nos.
First Amar Nath defendant No.1 was number the absolute owner of the suit property because the suit property was a Joint Hindu Family property Second, Amar Nath defendant No.1 was, therefore, number companypetent to enter into an agreement to sell the suit property and the Third, the sale in question was number for any legal necessity and, therefore, it was bad in law and number binding on the legal representatives because their companysents were number obtained by Amar Nath defendant No.1 prior to entering into an agreement of sale.
The plaintiffs alleged that they were ready to perform their part of the agreement but it was defendant No.1 Amar Nath who failed to perform his part and companymitted breach by selling the suit property to defendant Nos.
2 to 4 are companycerned, they filed their written statement.
It was also held that the agreement of sale entered into by Amar Nath was binding on all companyarceners.
It is against this order, the defendants have carried the matter to this Court in special leave to appeal.
Their defense was threefold.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in this appeal.
The Trial Court by judgment decree dated 22.11.1991 dismissed the suit.
Indeed, the Trial Court had already recorded this finding in plaintiffs favour but since the Trial Court dismissed the suit on other grounds, the defendants had a right to challenge this finding by filing cross objection before the First Appellate Court in plaintiffs appeal but the defendants did number do so and accepted this finding.
In the first place, in our companysidered opinion, when the three Courts below have held against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, this finding was binding on the High Court and also on this Court.
In short, the civil suit out of which this appeal arises was originally filed by one Kulwant Rai as plaintiff No.1 and Atul Kumar as plaintiff No.2 against the defendants, namely, 1 Amar Nath, 2 Yash Pal Mittal, 3 Sunil Mittal and 4 Bal Kishandas.
It was held that the agreement dated 12.06.1979 is proved the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement but since Amar Nath was number companypetent to enter into the agreement with the plaintiffs because the suit property was a Joint Hindu Family property and Amar Nath was only a Karta and lastly, the Plantiffs failed to aver that the sale was for the legal necessity and for the benefit of the family.
It was also held that the agreement was binding on Amar Nath and his legal representatives.
It was also held that defendant Nos.
A finding on the issue of readiness and willingness is one of the important and relevant findings in a suit for specific performance of an agreement.
His legal representatives, however, filed the written statement.
The First Appellate Court while decreeing the plaintiffs suit upheld this finding being number under challenge and the High Court upheld it by dismissing defendants second appeal.
They admitted that the suit property belonged to Amar Nath defendant No.1 .
As mentioned above, two aforementioned plaintiffs respondents herein filed a civil suit against the aforementioned four defendants appellants herein on 19.03.1982 claiming a relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 12.06.1979 in relation to the suit property as detailed in the plaint situated at Narain Dass Building, Durga Charan Road, Ambala Cantt.
Appellant No.5 Yash Pal Mittal , who was the original defendant No.2 also died and he is number represented by his legal heirs i Rita Mittal ii Akanksha and iii Akshay Mittal and Appellant No.6 Sunil Mittal is the original defendant No.3 whereas respondent No.1 Kulwant Rai is the original plaintiff, who also died and is number represented by his legal heirs Sudesh Goel, ii Ajay Goel and iii Sanjay K. Goel and respondent No.2 Atul Kumar is the original plaintiff No.2 in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
The defendants, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed the second appeal before the High Court.
They alleged that they had numberknowledge of the agreement of the plaintiffs and, therefore, they were bona fide purchasers of the suit property.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.1537 of 1993 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the regular second appeal filed by the appellants herein and upheld the judgment decree Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.01.28 154257 IST Reason dated 15.04.1993 of the First Appellate Court in C.A. No.7 of 15.02.1992.
Appellant Nos.1 to 4 and 7 are the legal representatives of the original defendant No.1Amar Nath.
