SATYA PRAKASH GOEL Vs. RAM KRISHAN MISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Dehradun dismissing the suit for specific performance of the contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and for possession of the property in dispute.

(2.) The appellant has alleged that the respondent No. 1 had decided to sell the property in dispute by its resolution No. 8 dated 27/2/1975 and authorised respondent No. 2 to sell the property in dispute and entered into an agreement for the said purpose. The respondent No. 2 had met and informed the appellant in the second week of June, 1976 that he was intending to sell the property in suit. The plaintiff had, therefore, made his offer to purchase the property for Rupees 67,100.00. The respondent No. 2 had accepted the offer of sale of the property on as it is basis with all litigation involved in the said property. It was alleged in the plaint that in this way there was concluded contract between the parties in respect of the property in dispute. The plaintiff-appellant had gone to Sri R. K. Sinha, Advocate of respondent No. 2 to get the draft of agreement executed between the contracting parties finalised. But Sri Sinha had not finalised it. Thereafter plaintiff-appellant had written letter to respondent No. 2 to get the sale-deed executed but no reply was given to this letter. Respondents 1 and 2 had sent notice on 20-9-1976 through their Advocate Sri R. K. Sinha denying the contract for sale between the parties. Respondents 1 and 2 sent another notice through their advocate Sri R. K. Sinha to the appellant on 3-11-1976 threatening for disposing their property in suit to defendant-respondents 4 to 6. The appellant has alleged that he was always willing to perform his part of contract.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate written statements.They denied that any contract was finalised between the parties. It was however admitted that plaintiff-appellant had made offer of Rs. 67,100.00 to purchase the property. It was denied that appellant had gone with the draft agreement to Sri R. K. Sinha, Advocate. The respondent had contended on the other hand that when the appellant had approached Sri R. K. Sinha, Advocate he had specifically informed appellant that the agreement shall provide no warranty of title nor shall provide any warranty according to law. The plaintiff had not agreed to these terms. It was urged that as plaintiff-appellant had not agreed to purchase the property without any warranty of title and warranty as provided by law no contract had finalised between the parties. Respondents I and 2 admitted that the appellant was certainly informed that the respondents 1 and 2 are intending to sell the property to respondents 4 to 6. It was also alleged in paragraph 22 of the written statement that as plaintiff-appellant had negotiated on behalf of some undisclosed person had no personal interest in the agreement. He had, therefore, no right to maintain the suit for specific performance of contract.