Hari Singh vs Nek Singh

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

In the present case, the petitionersplaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit plot was purchased by them from Puran Singh, Mehal Singh, Kaman Singh and Hakam Singh vide agreement dated 1.2.1989 for 20,000/. According to the plaintiff, the entire amount of the consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale agreement dated 1.2.1989. It may, however, be relevant to note that no sale deed pursuant to this agreement dated 1.2.1989 was executed by the seller in favour of the plaintiff till the date on which the suit was filed. The suit of the plaintiff was, however, dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, Sunam vide judgment dated 22.3.1995. The said judgment was challenged by the petitionerplaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur who by his judgment dated 31.1.1997 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitionerplaintiff. The aforesaid judgment has been challenged in the present appeal.

Mr. Markan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the agreement dated 1.2.1989 (Ex. P1) did not require registration. He, however, admitted that in pursuance to the said agreement, no sale deed was ever executed by the seller in favour of the appellants. He further submitted that since the whole amount of consideration i.e. Rs. 20,000/ was paid to the sellers by the appellants, the possession of the appellants was protected under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs have not been disbelieved by the learned trial court and as such the suit of the plaintiff should have been decreed.

After hearing the learned counsel of the appellants and having perused the records of the case, I however, do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel of the appellants. From the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, I find that in the case of the appellants there is allegation only to the effect that an agreement to sell was executed by the sellers in favour of the plaintiffs but so far defendants are concerned they filed Civil Suit No. 481 dated 19.7.1989 for specific performance of the suit plot and the said suit was decreed on 26.11.1990. In pursuance of the decree dated 26.11.1990, the sale deed was got executed through court order dated 10.9.1991 and the sale deed was got registered on 2.2.1993. Keeping in view these facts, both the courts below came to the conclusion that in fact the defendant in whose case decree of specific performance was passed and even the sale deed was executed, was in fact in possession of the suit land and he was the real owner. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reasons recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Since I have come to the conclusion that the respondentdefendants are the real owners in possession of the suit plot, I do not find any need to allow the application filed for additional evidence. Accordingly the application for additional evidence is also dismissed.