9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement to sell dated 19.6.1992 has been decreed against the respondent to the extent of 1/3rd share only of respondent in the suit property. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Chandgi Ram, father of the respondent, was a big land owner with Shamlat rights in Thok Jatan of Rohtak. He died intestate leaving behind the respondent as his sole legal heir. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned agreement dated 19.6.1992, want of cause of action, ancestral nature of suit property, absence of proper valuation of suit, fraud in execution of impugned agreement etc. On merits, the respondent stated that rights of Shamlat Deh of Thok Jatan, Rohtak have not been determined separately because of absence of partition. The respondent pleaded that no one can claim exclusive possession over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sq.yard. The respondent alleged that the contents of said agreement to sell were not read over to him. He denied having received Rs. 23,200/- from the appellant at any stage. The respondent prayed that the suit of the appellant be dismissed. 4. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002 dismissed the suit of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the tria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 2.6.2006, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal claiming that she is entitled to the specific performance of the agreement to sell in its totality on the ground that when the respondent had represented himself to be sole owner of the suit property he cannot be allowed to wriggle out of his promise made to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that once it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the appellant could help the appellant, only if the suit property was shown to be exclusively in the name of the respondent in the revenue record at the relevant time. Admittedly, the suit property was not recorded exclusively in the name of the respondent at the relevant time. Under the law, the respondent can not be permitted to sell the property belonging to the others. The judgment c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
