CHHEDA LAL Vs. UJIAREY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendants-appellants against the judgement and decree of the learned I Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance, directing that a sale deed pursuant to the registered agreement to sell dt. 13-4-1966 shall be execute either by Sri Jagdish Prasad, son of Sri Sita Ram Das, erstwhile Sarbarakar of the appellant 2, who is deity, or by the Sarbarakar, whosoever is there at the relevant time and thereby reversing the judgement and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants that Sri Sita Ram Das, who was the Sarbarakar of the deity (defendant 1) had entered into an agreement to sell, which was registered on 13th Apr., 1966, with the plaintiff. The defendant 1 was a Bhumidhar of plot No. 799 measuring 43. The temple, in which the idol was situated, was in dilapidated condition and that required immediate repairs. The Sarabarakar, namely, Sri Sita Ram Das, thus, had the legal necessity of sale and he had entered into an agreement to sell vide registered deed of 13th Apr., 1966, to transfer the aforesaid property or Rs. 600/-. A sum of Rs. 275/- was paid towards part consideration at the time of the registry and a balance of Rs. 325/- was agreed to be paid at the time of the registry of the sale deed. The plaintiff contended that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. It is said that the defendant 2 made an application during the consolidation proceedings that his name be entered as of the defendant 1. His name was entered as Sarbarkar by the consolidation Court and this is how he was arrayed as defendant 2. His predecessor in the office, namely, Sri Sita Das, has died. The defendants having failed to execute the sale deed pursuant to the registered agreement to sell, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground as contained in para 10 of the written statement that there was no legal necessity to make sale of the disputed property.