ROOMAL Vs. SIRI NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is classicillustration of law's delay. The purchasers agreed to buy aparcel of land on 13-1-1961. The suit for specific performancewas instituted on 18/09/1961. The trial court decreedthe suit in favour of one of the purchasers on February 2,1973. The present appeals were filed in 1973. And nowin 1985 we are deciding the appeals. Thus this litigation hastaken a quarter of a century.

(2.) The plaintiffs Siri Niwas, and the two minors SatishKumar and Brij Narain Singh, sued Roomal and Jodha forspecific performance. The suit was decreed in favour ofSiri Niwas. As regards the minor plaintiffs the suit wasdismissed. From the order of the Subordinate Judge dated2-2-1973 two appeals have been brought. R.F.A. 52 of 1973is the appeal of the vendors. Roomal and Jodha. Theychallenge the decree of specific performance obtained bySiri Niwas against (hem. R.F.A. 80 of 1973 is the appeal ofthe two minor plaintiffs namely, Satish and Brij Narain Singh.They contest the view of the trial court that they cannot suefor specific performance. This judgment will govern themboth.

(3.) These are the facts. On 13-1-1951, the defendantsRoomal and Jodha, agreed to sell a residential plot beatingKhasra No. 208113211 measuring "about one bigha" withinthe abadi of Zamrudpur, Delhi, to the plaintiffs, STi Niwas,and the two minors, Satish Kumar and Brij Narain Singh.The agreement to sell was executed. The defendant agreedto complete the sale by 28-2-1961. The defendants did notperform their part of the agreement. They did not executethe sale deed. The plaintiffs brought the suit for specificperformance. As we have said, the suit was decreed '" favourof Siri Niwas. The minors' claim was declined.