SATWANT KAUR Vs. AZHAR NAWAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have preferred this Civil Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 1-5-2008 passed by 8 th Additional District Judge, (FTC), Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No.4-B/2004 whereby and whereunder he partly decreed the suit of respondent.

(2.) This is admitted by appellants that an agreement was taken place between respondent and themselves, fixed date 30-6-1999 was extended time to time and lastly the date fixed for execution of registered sale deed was 30-7-1999, they had got some advance money. They had sent two telegrams dated 30-7-1999 to him. They had received the notice of his lawyer.

(3.) In brief, the respondent's case is that he and appellants had entered into an agreement for sale on 3rd June, 1999, it was settled between them that respondent would purchase the land measuring 12.50 acre situated at village Bakhtara (hereinafter called as 'disputed land') from appellants at the rate of Rs. 48,500/- per acre. He had paid appellants Rs. 51,000/- as Bayana and an agreement was written and signed by both the parties. On 14-6-1999 he paid Rs. 40,000/- to appellant No. 3, thereafter on 24-6-1999 he paid him Rs. 1,50,000/-. He totally paid them Rs. 2,41,000/-. At the time of said agreement appellants stated that land is free from encumbrances but the land was not transferred in the name of appellants after the death of Harbhajan Singh. It came to his knowledge afterward. Therefore, registration was frequently adjourned. On 22-7-1999 appellant No. 3 told him that now he is inclined to keep the mid-part of the land with himself, thus, they will return the received amount to him. It was reiterated on 30-7-1999 in his office by appellant No. 3. Appellants also informed him that they are going to sell the disputed land to another person. He had received both the telegrams on 31-7-1999, when he asked from appellant No. 3 as to why these telegrams had been sent then he replied that it was just formality and again promised to return back the amount, appellants failed to perform their part of contract hence he cannot be punished and he is entitled to get back Rs. 2,41,000/- from them.