RAM NIWAS Vs. OMKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is from a judgment and decree dated 23rd May, 1978 of the, 2nd Addl. Civil Judge, Meerut dismissing the suit for specific performance and recovery of possession.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant brought suit with the allegations that on 25th Sept. , 1965, Smt. Omkari (defendant No. 1) had agreed to sell her land to him for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -. She had 1/3rd share in joint bhumidhari and sirdari khatas. She had agreed to have her share partitioned and to acquire bhumidhari rights in respect of the sirdari land. THE sale deed in his favour was to be executed thereafter. He paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the defendant No. 1 as advance and she executed a registered agreement to sell in his favour. He gave notice dated 13th May, 1968, to the defendant No. 1 to have her share partitioned and to execute a sale deed thereof in his favour on receipt of the balance consideration of Rs. 17,000/- but she did not pay any heed. Defendant No. 1 and her co-sharers were in collusion, and therefore he thought that it would not be expedient to wait till the partition of the share of the defendant No. 1. He gave another notice dated 9/10 Sept. , 1968 calling upon the defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed of the land of her share in his favour after depositing ten times land revenue in respect of the sirdari land, and to come to the registration office on 20th Sept. , 1968 for the purpose. THE defendant No. 1 did not comply. After this notice, he several times approached the defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed but she refused to do so. He was all along willing and ready to perform his part of the contract and to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 17,000/- and other incidental expenses.

(3.) ORIGINALLY the plaintiff had arrayed the co-tenants of defendant No. 1 also as defendants Nos. 2 to 6 and had made some allegations with regard to the partition suit which was pending at the time of the institution of his suit. He later on deleted the names of those defendants from the aray of the defendants. Hence, it is not necessary to set out averments made with regard to the partition suit.