JAGDISH PRASAD BANSAL Vs. GURUWARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti (henceforth 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 10-A/98, whereby while refusing to grant a decree for specific performance of contract on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff was not always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, refund of the advance of Rs. 20,000/- was ordered.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the appellant/plaintiff had paid Rs. 20,000/-on 20-6-1997 to the respondent/defendant. It is also not disputed that the document (Exh. P- l ) purporting to be an agreement to sell the land Khasra No. 1298/10 area 0.03 acre and the house situated thereon in Ward No. 12, Sakti (henceforth 'the suit property') to the appellant/plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- was executed by the respondent/defendant and bears her signature. Receipt of Rs. 20,000/- was endorsed by the respondent/defendant on Exh. P-1. Receipt of notices (Exh. P-2), dated 25-9-1997 and (Exh. P-5), dated 6-12-1997 by the respondent/defendant is also not disputed. The appellant/plaintiff had averred that the defendant, who was in dire need of money for the marriage of her daughter had, on 19-12-2005 agreed to sell the suit property to him for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and had received Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money in the presence of witnesses. The expenses of registry were to be borne equally by the parties and the remaining consideration of Rs. 40,000/- was to be paid on 20-6-1997. The respondent/ defendant neither paid the remaining consideration nor executed the sale-deed in his favour despite repeated requests and notices (Exh. P-2 and Exh. P-5). The plaintiff pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On these premises, a suit for specific performance of the contract was filed. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the Court was not inclined to grant a decree for specific performance of contract, refund of the earnest money paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant with interest of 12% per annum from the date of decree till realisation be ordered.

(3.) THE appellant/plaintiff examined himself and Pawan Kumar Sharma (P.W. 2) and Ramcharan Mehar (P.W. 3) the attesting witnesses of Exh. P-1 and Jagdish Prasad Bansal (P.W. 1) the scribe of Exh. P-1. The respondent, besides examining herself, examined one Maniram as D.W. 2. The Trial Court held that repayment of Rs. 15,000/- by the respondent/defendant to the appellant/plaintiff in 15 equal instalments of Rs. 1,000/- was not proved. It held that the respondent/defendant had executed Exh. P-1 and had received Rs. 20,000/- from the appellant/plaintiff. It refused to grant a decree for specific performance of contract on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Consequently, while refusing to grant a decree for specific performance of contract, refund of Rs. 20,000/- from the respondent/defendant to the appellant/plaintiff along with annual interest at the rate of 12% was ordered. Arguments of Shri Sanjay Section Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant were heard at length. Record is perused.