HAZARI LAL (DEAD) Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment of the High Court[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] whereby the Second Appeal[Second Appeal No. 96 of 2010] filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

(2.) The suit[O.S. No.327 of 1999] filed by the respondents for specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed by the Trial Court[Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad] vide judgment dtd. 9/4/2007. The order was upheld in First Appeal and the Second Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant purchased House Nos. 259 and 260 from the owners thereof vide registered sale deed dtd. 6/7/1999. Thereafter, the respondents filed a civil suit in July 1999, praying for specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 24/9/1986 executed by the vendors-defendants No. 1 to 4, in favour of the respondents and challenging the sale deed dtd. 6/7/1999 executed in favour of the appellant. In terms of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by the vendors in favour of the respondents, three properties bearing House Nos. 258, 259 and 260, situated at Sadar Bazar, Allahabad were agreed to be sold to the respondents for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,000.00. Earnest money of Rs.5,000.00 was paid. It was agreed that the sale deed will be registered after getting permission from the Ceiling Department. The vendee was to be informed by the vendors after getting permission from the Ceiling Department. Six months' time was granted for getting the sale deed registered on payment of balance sale consideration after information of permission is given. The contention is that no permission as such was required for getting the sale deed registered from the Ceiling Department and in fact the vendors had never applied for that. As the vendee, namely, Mewa Lal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) had failed to get the sale deed registered in more than twelve years or take any action against the vendor to comply with the terms of agreement, the vendors sold House Nos. 259 and 260 to the appellant vide registered sale deed dtd. 6/7/1999. The appellant claimed he was tenant in the aforesaid two houses.