Labhu Ram vs Gurnam Singh and others

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Vide agreement of sale dated 3rd March, 1973 Labhu Ram Defendant Appellant agreed to sell his 98 kanals 4 marlas of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No 769 Khatauni No 886, rectangle No. 212, Killa Nos. 7, 14, 15/1, 17,18, 19/2, 22/1, 22/2. 23 and 4 and rectangle No. 229 Killa No. 3, 24, 5, 6/2 and 7/1 as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 to Plaintiff-Respondents for Rs. 98,200/-. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was obtained as advance at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale. Holding under issue No. 4 that the agreement of sale dated 3rd March 1973 as also secondary evidence of its contents were both inadmissible in evidence, learned trial court denied to Plaintiff Respondents the relief for specific performance of the agreement of sale aforesaid dated 3rd March, 1973. They were only granted by it on 1st April, 1978 a decree for return of Rs. 30,000/- paid by them as advance. Proportionate costs were also awarded. Feeling aggrieved of the assailed judgment and decree of 1st April, 1978 of the learned trial Court, Defendant Labhu Ram has filed regular first appeal No. 910 of 1978 in this Court.

I have heard Shri S. C. Sibal, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant, Shri H. L. Sarin, learned Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondents and have carefully gaine(sic) through the record of this Court.

It has been urged by the learned Counsel for Defendant Appellant that on 9th October, 1971 Defendant Appellant had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the same land with one Jogga Singh on payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- and had received Rs. 20,000/-as earnest money. Jogga Singh did not get the sale deed executed and therefore; Defendant-Appellant forfeited the earnest money paid by Jogga Singh to him. Jogga Singh aforesaid is a close relation of Plaintiff-Respondents and has got this suit filed from them only to get back his earnest money somehow ; otherwise it has been asserted that the agreement of sale dated 3rd March 1973 is a fraudulent transaction and Defendant-Appellant did not get from Plaintiff-Respondents the earnest money amounting to Rs. 30,000/- at all. The argument is wholly devoid of any merit. Execution of agreement of sale with Jogga Singh or forfeiture of earnest money paid by Jogga Singh to Defendant-Appellant has nothing to do with the new agreement of sale, held duly proved to have been executed by the Defendant Appellant with Plaintiff-Respondents. It was presumably in realisation of the fact that the intending purchaser of land in dispute Jogga Singh did not perform his part of the contract that Defendant Appellant agreed to reduce the price of the land to Rs. 98,200/- particularly when he had admittedly secured an unearned increment of Rs. 30,000/- for it through forfeiture of advance paid by Jogga Singh to him. Learned trial court having negatives the assertion of the agreement of sale dated 3rd March, 1973 being a fraudulent transaction and held the payment of Rs. 30,000/- by way of advance duly proved, nothing has been urged to dislodge this Court from the two conclusions aforesaid. Finding recorded by the learned trial court in this regard is, therefore, affirmed.

In result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- stands deposited in the State Bank of India, Phillaur. Plaintiff-Respondents Gurnam Singh etc., may withdraw it by producing a certified copy of this order before the Bank Authorities in terms of order dated 1st November, 1978.