KISHORE KUMAR DUGGAD Vs. RAJMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21st October 2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kondagaon, District -Kondagaon in Civil Suit No.14-A of 2012 by which the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract has been decreed.

(2.) Respondent- plaintiff- Rajmal Jain filed a suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract on the pleadings, inter alia, that in respect of the property in dispute admeasuring 2.85 acres of land owned by defendant No.1, an agreement of sale was executed by defendant Kishore Kumar Duggad on 19.5.2010 for a consideration of Rs.63,51,000/- and advance of Rs.5,51,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The balance amount of Rs.58 lakh was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. According to the plaintiff, under the agreement, sale deed was to be executed by October 2010. Further case of the plaintiff is that at the time of execution of agreement, the possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant was required to get the land properly demarcated, diverted and also obtain permission of the Collector. However, for want of one reason or the other, the defendant could not get the land diverted and permission obtained from the Collector till October 2010. Thereafter, the defendant executed another agreement on 24.10.2010 and obtained Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff as further advance. Under the new agreement, sale deed was to be executed by August 2012 upon receipt of balance amount of consideration. Though plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to get the sale deed executed by receiving balance amount of consideration, the defendant avoided execution of sale deed. Finally, the plaintiff sent legal notice by registered post on 1.12.2011 to the defendant to remain present for execution of sale deed. When the plaintiff, later on, came to know that the defendant, instead of selling of the property, was proceeding to sell the property to some other person, plaintiff got a notice published in the newspaper on 17.1.2012 which was followed by registered notice dated 19.1.2012. Finally, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff pleaded that he was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by depositing the balance amount of consideration with the defendant and, therefore, prayed that the defendant be directed to execute sale deed in his favour in respect of the disputed property.

(3.) Denying the plaint allegation, the defendant in his written statement though admitted that he had executed an agreement of sale in respect of the property in dispute on 19.5.2010 by receiving an advance of Rs.5,51,000/-, execution of second agreement dated 24.10.2010 was denied. The defendant pleaded that as per the agreement dated 19.5.2010, the plaintiff was required to pay the balance amount of consideration by October 2010 and get the sale deed executed but the plaintiff did not perform his part of contract by depositing balance amount by October 2010. Therefore, the agreement came to an end and the defendant had no legal obligation to execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Further pleading was that the defendant got this land diverted in July 2010 itself which was duly informed to the plaintiff also and even demarcation of land was also got done but he denied that possession of the land was given to plaintiff. It was further pleaded that in the agreement, there was no condition of getting permission obtained from the Collector. As pleaded by defendant, he requested the plaintiff in August 2010 and October 2010 to pay balance amount of sale consideration and get the sale deed executed. However, at that time, as the plaintiff could not arrange the balance amount of consideration, sale deed could not be executed. As per defendant's pleading, he never entered into any subsequent agreement dated 24.10.2010. He did not even receive any advance. He did not sign the agreement. Second agreement is forged document. As the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract by depositing balance amount of consideration and get the sale deed executed within the time stipulated in the agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.