These agreements are Ex.
4446/2005 filed by the Lrs.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues Whether the defendant executed agreements to sell building and machinery as referred in paras No.1 and 2 of the Plaint?
P 1 and Ex.
OPP Whether the plaintiff has been and companytinuous to be ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement?
The suit regarding specific performance of agreement Ex.
P 1 regarding share of the land measuring 29.2/3 marlas is hereby decreed on payment of the entire remaining sale companysideration i.e. Rs.5,000/ by the plaintiff.
P 1 unenforceable and that numberdecree for specific performance companyld be claimed with respect to the machinery which was moveable property and at best damages or companypensation companyld be claimed for the breach of this agreement.
OPP Whether the defendant has companymitted breach of the agreement of sale ?
She has, further, urged that Dula Singh had first purchased 11 marlas of land some time in the year 1954 and an ice factory had been companystructed thereon and it was from the income from the ice factory which formed the nucleus which had funded the purchase of 29.2/3 marlas of land by Dula Singh in the name of his sons some time in the years 1962 1963 and the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court therefore that the entire property companystituted Joint Hindu Family property was companyrect and companyld number be faulted, more particularly as the plaintiff had been unable to show any income in the hands of the family other than the income from the ice factory, leading to a clear inference about the status of the property.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court, one at the instance of the Makhan Singh, the original defendant, number represented by his legal representatives , and a second by Kulwant Singh plaintiff.
The unsuccessful plaintiff thereafter filed a first appeal which too was dismissed by the Addl.
The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 27.11.2002 substantially reversed the findings of the Courts below and partly decreed the suit in the following terms In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff is partly allowed.
District Judge, Amritsar by judgment dated 26.5.1993.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, the learned companynsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
1 to 3 were thus recorded in favour of the plaintiff.
However, suit of the plaintiff regarding sale of share by the defendant in the land measuring 11 marlas and the building companystructed thereon, which is Joint Hindu Family property, is dismissed.
The matter was then taken up in second appeal by the plaintiff.
As per the terms of the agreements, the sale deeds were to be executed on or before 10.8.1982.
The defendant companytested the suit on several grounds, inter alia, that the agreements as well as the receipts with respect to the earnest money had number been executed by him and that the land in question and the building raised thereupon and the ice factory were Joint Hindu Family property and he being one of four companyparceners was number companypetent to sell his share which made the agreement Ex.
OPP Whether agreement regarding sale of building is number specifically enforceable?
It was pleaded that the defendant defaulted on which a numberice was served on him on 19.12.1983 but as numberresult was forthcoming, a suit for specific performance was filed on 17.1.1984.
The findings on the issue Nos.
On 3.5.1982, the defendant entered into two agreements with the plaintiff, one for the sale of his share in the land measuring 40.2/3 marlas and the building on it for a companysideration of Rs.10,000/ with earnest money of Rs.5,000/ , and a second pertaining to the sale of his share in the machinery installed in the ice factory for a companysideration of Rs.16,000/ out of which Rs.5,000/ was paid as earnest money.
P 2 on the record.
The suit for specific performance of the agreement Ex.
The Trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit on this finding.
As per the case set up, each brother owned share in land measuring 40.2/3 marlas and in a building housing an ice factory situated at Rayya alongwith 1/8 share in the machinery installed therein.
WITH C.A. No.
4455/2005 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. These appeals by special leave arise out of the following facts The plaintiff respondent Kulwant Singh and defendant appellant Makhan Singh number through his LRs.
herein were two of four brothers.
P 2 pertaining to the sale of 1/8 share in the machinery installed in the ice factory is also decreed on payment of the remaining sale companysideration of Rs.11,000/ by the plaintiff.
