SANJEEV YADAV Vs. SMT. AIASWARIY MANDAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 11/9/2015 passed in Civil Suit No.04- A/2014 by District Judge, Dhamtari whereby, the appellants suit for grant of decree of specific performance has been dismissed.

(2.) Appellants/plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract on the pleadings that the defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed property on 28/6/2013 (Ex.P/3) for a consideration of Rs.78,00,000.00 (Rs. Seventy-Eight Lac only), out of which Rs.21,00,000.00 (Rs. Twenty-One Lac only) were paid in advance. Later on, another agreement dtd. 28/12/2013 (Ex.P/4) was executed, under which, the period within which the balance amount was to be paid, was extended and the plaintiffs paid a further amount of Rs.6,00,000.00 (Rs. Six Lac only). Thus, total amount of Rs.27,00,000.00 (Rs. Twenty-Seven Lac only) were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 from time to time at the time of execution of two agreements. Under the agreement, there were specific conditions requiring the defendant to obtain permission from the competent authority for sale of land and also to get the property released from encumbrance created by way of mortgage against loan taken from the bank. Though, the plaintiff had paid substantial amount of Rs.27,00,000.00 (Rs. Twenty Seven Lac only) and was always ready and willing to perform the part of contract, the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and despite specific notice given by the plaintiff, failed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the decree of specific performance of contract to be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant No.1, owner of the property, however, denied the very existence of the agreements and disputed the claim of the plaintiff. Upon disclosure of the details of loan, the plaintiff sought impleadment of the concerned bank also as one of the defendant and housing finance limited was impleaded as one of the defendant in the suit. The learned trial Court framed as many as three issues, which were as under :-