LAWS(GJH)-2010-7-421

MARUTI CORPORATION Vs. JAYABA RATANSINH JADEJA

Decided On July 28, 2010
MARUTI CORPORATION Appellant
V/S
JAYABA RATANSINH JADEJA AND 6 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2007 in Special Civil Suit No. 2999 of 1999 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the Suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance.

(2.) The facts pertaining to the appellant-plaintiff's case in the Suit were that the original defendants are members of the family and they have agricultural land bearing Survey No. 36 which is situated at village Nanamava of Rajkot District/Taluka. The land came in the ambit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act"). In this relation the defendants have executed Satakhat in favour of the plaintiff for development and sale on 19.3.1980. The plaintiff has alleged that according to the agreement executed in between the plaintiff and the defendant the consideration for the land was to be Rs. 18,11,670/-. In this regard the plaintiff has paid earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- on the day of the agreement. Further a cheque of Rs. 1 lakh dated 19.3.1980 drawn on Citizen Co-operative Bank was handed over to the defendants. Another cheque of Rs. 70,000/- was also given in this regard. Pursuant to the agreement to sale, possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the Suit has pleaded that he was always ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration. The plaintiff in the suit has stated that at the time of execution of the contract, ULC Act was in existence but the said Act is now repealed and the agreement is in existence. The condition as required in the agreement related to certain proceedings to be done in relation to the ULC Act are now not required to be done. In that view of the matter, the defendants are under an obligation to execute registered document by accepting the remaining amount of consideration. The plaintiff further averred that the defendants were not willing to perform their part of the contract. Therefore, a notice was sent to them. Having not respondent to the notice, the plaintiff has filed the present Suit for the specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for recovery of the amount paid as damage against the defendants.

(3.) The Suit has been contested by the defendants by filing written statement. It has been contended by the defendants that the agreement is void ab initio. According to the averment in the written statement, the Suit is delayed and is barred by laches, acquiescence and estoppel. According to the defendants, the land in question was agricultural land. It can only be purchased by a farmer and a Partnership Firm cannot purchase the agricultural land. The defendants have denied the execution of agreement with the plaintiff Partnership Firm. It has also been denied that the possession of the Suit land was given to the plaintiff. According to the defendants, with the repeal of ULC Act, the performance of the contract has become impossible because the condition so narrated in the agreement now cannot be fulfilled. The defendants have denied the existence of the contract at the time of filing of the Suit. The case of the defendants is that the land of the defendants was covered under ULC Act. Therefore, the defendants intended to construct houses for weaker section of society and on this count an agreement was entered into between the parties for the development of the land. The agreement basically purported to be for the development and not for the sale of the Suit land to the plaintiff. It has been prayed that the facts of the plaintiff's Suit are not correct and therefore the Suit deserves to be dismissed.