Ravinder Singh vs Ranjit Singh and Another

Hemant Gupta, J.—The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.2.1996, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas, was decreed.

It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 executed an agreement for sale of his share of the land for a total consideration of Rs. 13,750/- A sum of Rs. 10,000/-was received by defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of sale and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,750/-was to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed which was contemplated to be executed on 20.9.1996. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and was in possession of the balance sale consideration. Defendant No. l did not honour the terms of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff also remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar with sale consideration, but defendant No. 1 in breach of the terms of the sale deed executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2. The said sale deed is dated 3.5.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the plaintiff sought a decree for possession on the basis of prior agreement of sale.

Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact in respect of execution of the agreement to sell and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and consequently decreed the suit.

The Courts have considered the fact that defendant No. 1 had not appeared as a witness and that plea of the appellant that he is a bona-fide purchaser for value and consideration was not tenable. It may be noticed that the appellant is resident of the same village and the first Appellate Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dr. Govinddas and Another Vs. Shrimati Shantibai and Others, , wherein it has been held that the knowledge of agreement of sale executed in favour of a party is known to the inhabitants of a small village and presumption can be raised in this regard. Still further, it has been found that there is a recital in the sale deed in respect of delivery of possession but as a matter of fact, Karnail Singh was not in exclusive possession of the property in question. Such finding has been returned on the basis of judgment and decree Exhibit P. 17.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has made inquiries before purchase of land from the Patwari before the purchase of the land and thus, the finding recorded by the Courts below that the appellant is not a bona-fide purchaser for value and consideration, is not sustainable. However, I do not any merit in the said argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

The appellant has not examined the Patwari from whom he has allegedly made inquiries. Still further, the appellant and the vendor are residents of the same village. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gobind Das''s case (supra), has held that knowledge of the agreement of sale is presumed to be in the knowledge of the inhabitants of a small village. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below that the appellant is not a bona-fide purchaser for value and consideration, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.

Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.