AJIT SINGH Vs. BAIJNATH AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1992 passed by District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 19-A/87, whereby decreed the suit for refund of Rs. 24,000.00 with interest instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract.

(2.) APPELLANTS filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 28-7-1984 stating that respondent entered into an agreement on 28-7-1984 with the appellants contracting to sell the suit property to the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 75,000.00. Out of the amount of consideration respondent had already received an amount of Rs. 12,000.00 on 5-9-1983 and Rs. 6,000.00 on 16-4-1984. Appellants paid Rs. 6,000.00 to the respondent on 28-7-2004. Having received the amount of Rs. 24,000.00 in all in part payment of the amount of consideration, respondent executed an agreement on 28-7-1984. Under this agreement respondent promised to sell the suit property to the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 75,000.00. Respondent further agreed that he would receive the balance of the consideration of Rs. 51,000.00 from the appellants by 6-10-1984 and execute a sale deed transferring the suit property to the appellants. It was also agreed that the expenses in connection with the execution of sale deed viz., stamp duty, registration fee, document writer's fee etc., shall be borne equally, i.e., 50% by the appellants and 50% by the respondent. Appellants were in possession of the suit property since before 28-7-1984 as they had taken it on a monthly rent of Rs. 150.00.

(3.) APPELLANTS repeatedly asked the respondent to accept the balance of the consideration and execute the sale deed in their favour, but respondent always avoided the same. On 4-7-1987 respondent through his counsel served a notice on appellants, claiming arrears of rent and for eviction of the suit property. The said notice was replied and in reply, respondent was called upon to receive the balance and execute the registered sale deed. On 9-7-1987 appellants also sent a registered notice to respondent through their Counsel calling upon him to execute the registered sale deed in their favour after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 51,000.00 within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, but respondent avoided it. On 16-7-1987 appellants sent a telegraphic notice to respondent which was duly delivered at the respondent's residence. Appellants were remained present on 17-7-1987 outside the office of Sub-Registrar, Raigarh and waited for respondent to come and execute the sale deed, but respondent did not turn up. Appellants were ready and willing and are still ready and willing to perform their part of agreement dated 28-7-1984. Respondent is bound under the agreement dated 28-7-1984 to execute the sale deed transferring his title in favour of the appellants and if for any reason the Court finds that the appellants are not entitled for the relief of specific performance then the appellants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 24,000.00 with interest @ 18% per annum which is the current rate of interest of advances made by Banks.