BK MALIK Vs. NARENDRA SINGH AIREN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant two appeals arise from the common judgment and decree dated 19-7-2007, passed by the 10th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Durg in Civil Suit Nos. 26-A/2007 and 25-A/2007. Since the facts situation and the question of law involved in both the appeals are one and the same, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment and order. The brief facts in nutshell are that the plaintiff/vendor (Narendra Singh Airen) filed two suits (Civil Suit No. 26-A/2007 and 25-A/2007) for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1/Vendee. The case of the plaintiff/vendor was that two agreements (Ex. P/1 and P/2) were entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 on 11-3-1997 for sale of plot No. 6, block-22, area 18 x 30 meter=540 square meter and. plot No. 5 block-42 area 18 x 30 meter=540 square meter, which are situated at Motilal Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai. Prior to it both the parties arrived at an oral agreement on 18-12-1996 for sale of the plots and the defendant No. 1 received Rs. 3,50,000/- as advance for each plot and rest of the sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- for each plots, to be paid at the time of registration.

(2.) The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 submitted an application on 3-4-1997 to the Special Area Development Authority (SADA), Bhilai for transfer of the plots in dispute in the name of plaintiff by way of sale. Accordingly, in the daily newspaper edition dated 24-4-1997 a notice was published inviting objections, if any, from the interested persons, for transfer of plots. Since none of the objections were received within 30 days, vide memo-Ex. P/3 to P/6 permission was issued by the SADA subject to deposit of Rs. 48,000/- towards mutation fees for each plots.

(3.) It is alleged that as the defendant No. 1 was not ready to execute the sale deed in accordance with the agreement to sale and was not paying any heed on the request of the plaintiff, even after obtaining part payment of consideration, the plaintiff issued a notice on 16-9-1999 (Ex. P/21 and P/22) and defendant No. 1 issued notice to the plaintiff on 1-10-1999 (Ex. P/24) which was replied by the plaintiff on 15-10-1999 (Ex. P/23). After dissolution of SADA it was merged with the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai and on 24-3-2001 (Ex. P/25) the defendant No. 3 issued a notice to the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed else the permission issued earlier by the SADA will be cancelled.