After the judgment in the L.P.A., the respondents herein moved application for restitution urging that since the decree which was executed in favour of the appellants is modified to the extent of Gobind Mals share, there should be restitution as companytemplated under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure to that extent and they be put in possession of that part of the suit property.
The plaintiffs in those proceedings, namely, the present appellants filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the said High Court which, while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal partly, held the claim of the appellants in regard to the share of Gobind Mal cannot be sustained, hence, rejected and dismissed the suit in regard to the share of Gobind Mal since the attorney of Gobind Mal had entered into the agreement of sale after the said Gobind Mal had died.
In appeal, the High Court by the impugned order, has held that the respondents being the purchasers of the share of Gobind Mal and having purchased the same from the widow Ambi Bai, they have the locus standi to make the application under Section 144 C.P.C. It also held that said Ambi Bai never challenged the sale made by her in regard to the share of Gobind Mal on any ground much less that the same was without companysideration.
On this basis, it directed the remand of the case to the Executing Court to determine the share of Gobind Mal in the suit land and the proportionate price thereof and on such determination, the appellants before it i.e. the respondents before us be asked to deposit such determined amount and thereafter the Executing Court should pass orders in regard to the companyrections to be made in the sale deed to that extent, and companysequential companyrections in the registered documents and the revenue records be made.
Therefore, on the reversal of the judgment and decree, the law cast an obligation on the parties to the suit who received the benefit of the erroneous judgment to make restitution to the other party for what it had lost and further held that it is the duty of the companyrt to enforce that obligation.
Thus, the decrees of the trial companyrt in those suits came to be reversed and the suits dismissed.
When the appellants suit was decreed, it was the respondents herein who challenged the said decree inspite of their suits being dismissed and got the decree of the trial companyrt reversed by the Single Judge of the High Court.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows Originally the suit lands belonged to Gobind Mal, Brij Lal, Vassan Mal and Baldev Singh.
Almost simultaneously, the respondents herein also filed two suits claiming to be the purchaser of the suit lands against Ambi Bai, widow of Gobind Mal and Yashodha Bai.
Therefore, it companyld be said that learned Single Judges judgment dismissing the suit and the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench modifying the decree of the trial companyrt were done in the proceedings to which the appellants and the respondents alone were parties.
The learned Single Judge who heard the appeal, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments decrees in favour of the appellants holding the original plaintiffs in whose favour the trial companyrt granted the decree, were number ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract.
The respondents herein, however, challenged the said decree of specific performance granted in favour of the appellants by way of an appeal before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
The trial companyrt and the lower appellate companyrt dismissed the said application holding that the respondents did number have the locus standi to make maintain the said application since their claim to the suit land including that of Gobind Mals share was rejected by the dismissal of their suit.
Therefore, the appellants did number derive any title from the agreement executed by the attorney of Gobind Mal, however, their claim for the rest of the property was decreed.
Yashodha Bai and Raj Rani by means of two sale deeds.
It was a dispute inter se between the appellants and respondents herein.
On failure of the said ladies to companyplete the sale deeds, said Inder Singh and Gurdit Singh predecessors in interest of the present appellants herein after to be referred to as the appellants filed two suits for specific performance of their agreements.
The said Yashodha Bai and Raj Rani agreed to sell the said property in favour of Inder Singh and Gurdit Singh by way of two sale agreements.
Thereafter, when the LPA was preferred before the High Court, it is only the respondents herein who were parties to the said appeal.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16.3.1999 made in S.A. No.1720/98, the appellants have preferred the above numbered appeals.
Their attorneys sold part of the lands owned by the abovesaid persons in favour of one Smt.
