MOOL CHAND Vs. SANWAT RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.2.1968, for recovery of damages for use of machinery in question and also for pendents lite and future damages and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow.

(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal, in brief are that Original Suit No. 86 of 1974 was filed by the plaintiff-appellant pleading that father of the plaintiff Shri Ved Prakash was the owner of 21 Durvijai Ganj, Aminabad Road, Lucknow, and he used to run Soap business on the ground floor of the said premises. The said business was not yielding profits, he, therefore, entered into partnership with the defendants-respondents to run Oil Mill and Flour Mill in the said premises in the name and style Ashok Oil and Flour Mill. It was pleaded that plaintiff purchased the said premises from his father in the name of Shri Indra Chand. (brother-in-law of the plaintiff), benami and permitted the partnership business to continue. On 23.2.1968 the said partnership was dissolved. The machinery of the said mill was valued at Rs. 15,000, the defendant executed an agreement to sell the machinery for Rs. 15,000 on 23.2.1968. On the same date an amount of Rs. 5.000 was paid as earnest money and balance was agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of machinery latest by 31.12.1975. It was pleaded that simultaneously a lease deed was executed in favour of defendants for a limited period of seven years, in respect of the ground floor of the building in question. On 1.1.1976 the plaintiff, became the owner of the said machinery but the same was not handed over to him by the defendant although plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to pay the balance of sale consideration amounting to Rs. 10,000 to the defendant. The terms of lease (seven years) also came to an end on 23.2.1975 but inspite of the notice dated 23.2.1975 the defendant did not hand over the machinery and did not pay the damages for the loss suffered by him, at the rate of Rs. 10 per day. Hence the suit for the above mentioned reliefs.

(3.) The defendants-respondents filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. The execution of agreement of sale was also denied. It was pleaded that plaintiff was not entitled to any relief and the suit filed by him was liable to be dismissed.