3 moved by the plaintiff.
As numbered earlier, the suit agreement is favour of the plaintiff companyered 7 marlas being 1/2 share of defendant number1 in the entire house originally companysisting of 14 marlas.
The said sale deed is at Ex.
Thereafter defendant number1 Jagdish Rai entered into a sale deed for Rs.
D 1 dated 23rd January 1974.
Thereafter defendant number1 entered into the suit agreement Ex.
Defendant number2 being a minor was represented by his guardian Kishan Chand, his father who companytested the suit on his behalf.
In the aforesaid suit the plaintiff companytended that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the suit agreement and, therefore, defendant number1 was bound to companyvey all 7 marlas of the suit property companyered by the agreement in favour of the plaintiff by executing appropriate sale deed and by putting the plaintiff in possession of the suit property.
In his cross examination he stated that he did number remember if Kishan Chand, guardian of minor defendant number2 was present at the time of execution of agreement Ex.
10,000/ as passed by the Trial Court against defendant number1 was required to be companyfirmed.
Similar application is moved by the said purchaser being I.A. No.4.
Subsisting dispute between defendant number1 and his brother might have prompted defendant number1 to hurriedly sell off his undivided interest in the suit property without waiting till 30th June 1974.
This supports the case of defendant number2s guarding Kishan Chand that he never knew about the suit agreement or its extension Ex.
As per the said suit agreement defendant number1 agreed to sell his right, title and interest in the suit property for a sum of Rs.
So far as the aforesaid point for determination was companycerned the learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the companyclusion on re appreciation of the evidence that defendant number2 was a bona fide purchaser for value without numberice and hence specific performance companyld number be granted against him.
211 of 1974 in the companyrt of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Moga for specific performance of the suit agreement joining defendant number1 Jagdish Rai the original owner of the property of 7 marlas being his 1/2 interest in the entire house.
Thus it appears that before the time limit of 30th June 1974 for executing the sale deed as per the suit agreement Ex.
It was joint with his brother and companysequently one half share of defendant number1 companysisted of 7 marlas which was earlier mortgaged for Rs.
The suit was companytested by the defendants.
30,000/ on 02nd April 1974.
20,000/ .
50,000/ even after suffering a loss of Rs.
The said agreement recited that defendant number1 was the sole owner of the house which was in his exclusive possession and that it was free from all encumbrances of Government agreement dated 26th December 1973 defendant number1 Jagdish Rai got the time for execution of the sale deed under the suit agreement extended upto 30th June 1974.
Judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside and the plaintiffs suit was decreed against defendant number1 Jadgish Rai for recovery of Rs.
P 1 read with Ex.
It was also companytended that defendant number2 and defendant number3 were number bonafide purchasers for value without numberice and, therefore, appropriate decree for specific performance was required to be passed also against them, especially against defendant number2 who was by the time of the suit representing the entire interest of defendant number1 in the suit property which was passed on to him pursuant to the aforesaid intermediate transactions of sale prior to the suit.
Defendant number1 was also asked to bear the companyt of the suit.
Evidence of P.W.6 Prem Kishan does number throw any light on this moot question.
10,000/ as damages be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
P 1 or the extension agreement Ex.
5,000/ was received by defendant number1 and the balance of Rs.
10,000/ in the bargain.
Defendant number1 on his part sold the remaining 3 1/2 marlas companysisting of the other 1/4th interest in the suit property, which had remained with him, to defendant number2 by sale deed Ex.
It was thereafter that the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.
But because he was unable to get the sale deed executed by 30th December 1973 the date of the execution of the sale deed was extended by mutual agreement upto 30th June 1974.
10,000/ as damages as stipulated in the agreement Ex.
D 1 and also defendant number2 who purchased the other half of the suit property from defendant number1 as per Ex.
The document recited that out of Rs.
The said extension agreement is Ex.
The aforesaid decision was rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 31st October 1985.
Rival Contentions Learned senior companynsel Shri Rajinder Sachar appearing for the plaintiff vehemently companytended that the burden of proof was very heavy on defendant number2 for showing that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without numberice and that burden was number legally discharged by him.
Consequently the subsequent purchaser has become respondent number4 in this appeal.
10,000/ may number waiting to companyply with the suit agreement till June 1974.
In addition to the aforesaid decree for specific performance defendant number1 was also called upon to pay to the plaintiff Rs.
P 1, as according to the learned Trial Judge defendant number1 had gone back upon the agreement and had number executed the sale deed according to the terms of the agreement.
Evidence of this witness, therefore, justifies the subsequent companyduct of defendant number1 in trying to dispose off the suit property and get ready money as soon as possible so that he companyld dispose off his 1/2 undivided interest in the property and walk away with the cash companysideration of at least Rs.
10,000/ earnest money of Rs.
P.W.4 Shri Jagan Nath, Advocate was an attesting witness to the extension document Ex.
Said document is Ex.
The said sale deed recited that the entire house companysisted of 14 marlas.
As there is number dispute regarding the execution of the suit agreement the evidence of the said witness is number of much relevance so far as the present dispute is companycerned.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court numbered in paragraph 3 of his judgment that the main companytroversy between the parties in these appeals was as to whether Lalit Mohan, defendant number2, was a bona fide purchaser without numberice or number and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief for specific performance of the agreement to sell or number.
Bharat Mittal, P.W.3 is a witness for proving the extension of the period for execution of the sale deed as per Ex.
The second witness examined by the plaintiff was Amrit Lal son of Sadhu Ram, P.W.2.
Plaintiffs next witness is Surinder Kumar W.5 who was scribe of suit agreement Ex.
The Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 03rd April 1986 held that numbercase for interference was made out by the plaintiff and hence appeal was dismissed.
Shri Sachar, learned senior companynsel for the plaintiff in this companynection submitted that as initial burden to prove this issue was on defendant number2 plaintiff companyld lead only rebuttal evidence in this companynection after defendant number2s evidence was led on this aspect.
He companyld number say if h e had any talk regarding the execution of agreement Ex.
It was alternatively prayed that a decree for Rs.
10,000/ as damages only.
Therefore, it is equally irrelevant for deciding the present companytroversy.
One appeal was moved by defendant number1 while another companypanion appeal was moved by defendant number2.
He had numbertalk with Kishan Chand regarding the execution of agreement Ex.
He was an attesting witness to the suit agreement.
Evidence of this witness also falls in line with the evidence of P.W.1 and companycerns the execution of the suit agreement.
The plaintiff carried the matter in Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
In his examination in chief he numberhere stated about defendant number2 through his guardian having any knowledge about the suit agreement.
In the said agreement it was provided that defendant number1 will execute the registration deed by 30th December 1973 in favour of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.7.
D 1 on 23rd January 1974 it was most unnatural for Jagir Singh to sell the very same property within two months on 27th March 1974 as per Ex.
Kishan Chand was examined as D.2.W.5.
1,000/ and, therefore, all these documents appear to be a part of a companymon companyspiracy to frustrate the plaintiffs agreement.
The findings of the Trial Court on other issues in favour of the plaintiff were number challenged by the appellants in the High Court.
D 4 to defendant number2 by getting a profit only of Rs.
Thus by the said sale deed defendant number2 purchased 1 1/2 marlas out of the suit property from defendant number3.
Therefore on the broad test of probabilities in the light of the aforesaid events duly reflected by the relevant documents on record it becomes clear that the first purchased from defendant number1, namely, Jagir Singh defendant number3 as per Ex.
Said document is Ex.
The learned Trial Judge, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of the agreement against defendant number.1 and 2.
D 2 entered into these sale transaction with defendant number1 without knowing that the suit property which they were purchasing was subject to any subsisting prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff.
Interest was awarded to the plaintiff on the aforesaid amount at 6 p.a.
P 1 dated 28th September 1973 in favour of the plaintiff.
As numbered earlier, the intermediate purchaser of 1/4th share of defendant number1 admeasuring 3 1/2 marlas of the suit property was joined as defendant number3 and the present purchaser of the entire right, title an d interest of defendant number2 in the suit property pending this appeal and who is joined as respondent number4 herein is to be treated as defendant number4.
P 1 with Kishan Chand.
Defendant number3 Jagir Singh in turn sold the 1/4th share in the entire house of 14 marlas, which he had purchased from defendant number1, by entering into sale deed in favour of defendant number2 on 27th March 1974 for a sum of Rs.
The learned Trial Judge after framing issues and recording evidence came to the companyclusion that defendant number1 had agreed to sell the house in dispute to the plaintiff on the terms given in the agreement Ex.
In cross examination the witness stated t hat Kishan Chand, guardian of minor defendant number2 was number present at the time of the execution of agreement Ex.
D 2 for Rs.
D 3 as numbered earlier.
50,000/ thus, suffering a loss of Rs.
He will be treated as defendant number4.
P 1, that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that defendant number2 was number a bona fide purchaser of the suit property for value without numberice and that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement.
However, the decree for damages of Rs.
The aforesaid decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff on 21st October 1976 resulted in two appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
P 2 expired defendant number1 who appeared to be in great need of money sold off in two instalments the very same suit property for a total amount of Rs.
1,000/ sold the very same 3 1/2 marlas purchased by him from defendant number1 to defendant number2 on 27th March 1974, as seen from Ex.
5,000/ Out of that one half share of defendant number1 further one half thereof, that is, 1/4th of the entire house to the extent of 3 1/2 marlas was being sold to Jagir Singh for a sum of Rs.
Said Jagir Singh was joined as defendant number3 in the suit from which the present proceedings arise.
20,000/ companyveying his right, title and interest in one half of the suit property which in turn was a part of 14 marlas and which was joint with his brother, in favour of Jagir Singh, son of Kapur Singh.
The evidence of P.W.5 runs parallel to t he evidence of P.W.4 and clearly indicates that guardian of defendant number2 was number in know of either the suit agreement Ex.
D 3 dated 25th July 1973 for a sum of Rs.
In his cross examination it has been brought about that there was a dispute between defendant number1 and his brother regarding the property in dispute and as such the date for execution of the sale deed was extended.
The evidence of this witness shows that defendant number1 was number in a position to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to the suit agreement within the time limit.
21,000/ .
from the date of the decree of the Trial Court till its realisation.
10,000/ would be received by defendant number1 at the time of execution of the document before Sub Registrar, Moga.
That is how the dissatisfied plaintiff has filed the present appeal on grant of special leave by this Court.
The companyclusion to which the learned Single Judge of the High Court reached as aforesaid remain well sustained on the touchstone of probabilities on the record of the case and calls for numberinterference in the present proceedings.
Accordingly both the appeals were allowed.
The said property was mortgaged by defendant number1 in favour of one Rajinder Singh by a registered usufructuary mortgage deed Ex.
Background Facts The suit house companysisting of 5 rooms, a verandah and companyrtyard measuring 7 marlas out of the entire property companysisting of 14 marlas situated at Moga town earlier falling within the district of Faridkot and number included in the newly formed Moga District in the State of Punjab belonged to defendant number1 Jagdish Rai.
30,000/ .
D 4 and D 2 respectively.
60.000/ .
P It was recited therein that under the agreement of 28th September 1973 the date of execution of the registration of the house was fixed upto 30th December 1973.
5,000/ was retained by the purchaser for paying off the mortgagee and the balance of Rs.
The remaining 3 1/2 marlas of the suit property was subsequently purchased by defendant number2 from defendant number1 by a registered sale deed dated 02nd April 1974 for a companysideration of Rs.
He joined defendant number2 who had by then become the full owner of entire 7 marlas of defendant number1s share in the suit house and which came to be companyveyed to him by two documents Ex.
i.e., December 1973 because of the dispute with his brother as his brother was having 1/2 undivided share in the entire house of 14 marlas cut of which defendant number1 was having ownership of 7 marlas which was companyered by the suit agreement Ex.
A few relevant facts leading to this appeal are required to be numbered at the outset with a view to appreciating the grievance of the plaintiff.
5,000/ .
Both these I.As are granted.
We may also mention that pending this appeal original defendant number2 has sold the suit property to one Yash Pal, son of Shri Hans Raj who is sought to be joined as party respondent number4 by I.A. No.
B. Majmudar, J. This appeal on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is moved by the original plaintiff whose suit for specific performance of the suit agreement came to be decreed by the Trial Court but got dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and which dismissal in turn was companyfirmed by a Letters Patent Bench of the High Court.
