KESHAVLAL LAXMANDAS PATEL Vs. NARSINHBHAI KALIDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for obtaining a decree for declaration that the agreement to sell the suit lands entered into between him and the respondent No. 1 on 9-1-65 is still subsisting. The plaintiff has claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the suit lands to any other person The said suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judges S. D. Baroda which registered as Special Civil suit No. 30/68. The learned trial Judge having dismissed the suit the plaintiff has filed this First Appeal.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the suit is with reference to Agricultural land bearing S. No. 3/1 situated in the sim land of village Nagarwala near Baroda. On 9th January 1965 the suit land was standing in the name of the defendant No. 1 in the revenue record. On that day the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement by virtue of which the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 0.75 per sq.ft. and also gave the earnest money of Rs. 150.00. At that time the suit land was cultivated by one Dahyabhai Ranchhodbhai as a tenant. The agreement to sell therefore stipulated that the document of sale should be executed and the remaining amount of consideration should be paid up by the plaintiff after vacant possession of the suit land was obtained by the defendant No. 1 from the tenant Dahyabhai Ranchhodbhai. This agreement is found at Ex. 28 in the record of the case.

(3.) Several months thereafter i.e. on 2nd December 1965 the defendant no. 1 got the land mutated to the name of the defendant No. 2 who is related to him as his mother. The mutation entry which is found at Ex. 39 shows that the land was eventually mutated to the name of the defendant no. 2 as it was alleged that the land was petitioned and had gone to the share of the defendant No. 2 as early as 1-75-49. In proof of the said partition some document also seems to have been produced before revenue authorities for the purpose of mutation. The case of the plaintiff is that he knew nothing about this mutation.