R.S.A.No.2768 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2768 of 2006 Date of Decision : 07.07.2009 Jarnail Singh and Another ...Appellants Versus Harbhajan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate, for respondent No.3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.2 and 3, sons of Vir Singh, are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31.10.1995, was decreed. One Taru Singh S/o Sadhu Singh (defendant No.1) entered into an agreement to sell of 13 Kanals 1 Marla of land with the plaintiffs on 31.10.1995 at the rate of Rs.3 lac per acre. A sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1 as earnest money. The balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, which was agreed to be executed on 31.12.1995. On 10.11.1995, defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in respect of land in dispute, in favour of the present appellants i.e. Defendant Nos.2 R.S.A.No.2768 of 2006 2 and 3. The said sale deed was executed through his attorney defendant No.4-Gurmej Kaur @ Gejo. Earlier the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction, in which it was disclosed that sale deed has been executed. In view of the said fact, the plaintiffs withdrew that suit and filed the present suit for specific performance on 23.12.1995. Before the learned trial Court, Resham Singh (PW-1), the attesting witness of the agreement Ex.P-1, deposed that Gurmej Kaur- defendant No.4 is the sister-in-law of Taru Singh-defendant No.1. It was found that village Chamiara is a small village having only 150 families. By taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, a finding was returned that Ex.P-1 was executed by Taru Singh and that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that defendant No.1 has breached of contrct by executing sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. The said finding was affirmed in appeal. It may be noticed that the first appeal was filed by the appellants through their attorney Gurmej Kaur W/o Jarnail Singh. But whether the said Gurmej Kaur is defendant No.4 or not, could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties in the present second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants are the bona fide purchasers for value and consideration and that the plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance even before the date of specific performance of the agreement. Reliance is placed upon Jawahar lal Wadhwa and another Vs. Haripada Chakroberty AIR R.S.A.No.2768 of 2006 3 1989 Supreme Court 606. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the appellants are the nephews of Taru Singh as Taru Singh and Vir Singh are the real brothers. The said fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is also on record, that the parties are residents of a small village and in a small village any agreement in respect of sale of property is known to all the inhabitants. It was so held by Supreme Court in Dr. Govinddas and Another Vs. Shrimati Shantibai and Others 1972 P.L.R. 227. The appellants are not the strangers to the vendor. They are his real nephews. The sale deed has been executed in favour of the appellants soon after the agreement to sell was executed. Such sale deed has been executed in favour of the defendants for no reason except to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs. It may be noticed that neither defendant Taru Singh nor his attorney Gurmej Kaur has appeared as witness. Therefore, having received the earnest money of Rs.2,10,000/- and soon thereafter executing the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is nothing but wholly illegal and the appellants cannot claim any bona fide rights over the property on the basis of such sale deed. In view thereof, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 07.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE