SARDAR SATPAL SINGH Vs. SAROJ SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.A34/2015, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance of contract. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the trial Court.

(2.) The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the Plaintiff- Sardar Satpal Singh instituted a suit claiming specific performance of contract by submitting inter alia that the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants, namely, Jainath Shukla, has executed an agreement to sale dated 04.07.1987 in his favour agreeing to alienate the land in question bearing Khasra No.1245 and 1246 admeasuring 0.03 acres and 0.40 acres respectively constructed with a Kachcha house along with its badi (open space), which is situated at Ambikapur, District Surguja for a consideration of Rs.55,001/- upon receiving an earnest amount of Rs.5,000/- from him. According to the Plaintiff, the rest of the sale consideration was to be paid within a period of 90 days, i.e., by 04.10.1987. It is pleaded further that since Late Jainath used to stay out of Surguja district and was not in a position to travel alone, therefore, he could not come in time to Ambikapur for collecting the rest of the sale consideration. However, he informed him to remit the same either by cash or by demand draft as per his convenience, and there will be no time limit for the same. It is pleaded further that despite the payment of entire sale consideration by demand drafts, which were issued with effect from 12.10.1987 upto 11.10.2004, the registered deed of sale has not been executed on one pretext or the other, and in the year 2011, he came to know that the Defendant has not filed any application before the Collector seeking permission for alienation of the land in question, therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 06.02.2012.

(3.) While denying the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the Defendants that since the Plaintiff has failed to deposit the rest of the sale consideration within a period of 90 days as provided under the alleged agreement to sale and, the suit instituted on 06.02.2012, much beyond the prescribed period of limitation, is apparently barred by time. It is contended further, while referring to the averments made in the earlier instituted suit, being Civil Suit No.20-A/03 that the cause of action for institution of the suit for specific performance of contract was available with the Plaintiff, but, instead, he has chosen to claim for declaration of title on 01.10.2001, therefore, the instant suit is barred by law and is liable to be dismissed.