MOHD YUNUS AND OTHERS Vs. RAM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kheri, in Civil Appeal No.4 of 2001, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent herein, Ram Chandra (now deceased) filed a suit for specific performance of contract bearing Original Suit No. 158 of 1989 titled as Ram Chandra vs. Mohd. Yunus and others. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the defendants entered into an agreement to sell of their house situated at Mohalla Poorvi Dixitana, Town Gola, Pargana Hyderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri, for a sum of Rs. one Lac, a sum of Rs. 52,000/- was paid as earnest money and an agreement to sell was executed on 29.07.1988 and the same was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mohmadi, District Lakhimpur kheri; it was agreed that the defendants will execute the sale deed in respect of the said house within a period of one year on receiving the remaining balance amount of Rs.48,000/-. The respondent/plaintiff alleged that he had requested the defendants-appellants several times to execute the sale deed, but the appellants did not execute the sale deed; the plaintiffs paid and additional sum of Rs. 1,000/- on 04.05.1989. The respondent/plaintiff sent registered notice dated 24.06.1989 to the defendants and requested to execute and register the sale deed and the defendants were requested to appear in the office of Sub-Registrar on 12.07.1989, but the said notice was refused by the defendants; the respondent again sent a notice dated 15.07.1989 through registered post on 17.07.1989 and requested the defendants to appear in the office of Sub-Registrar on 29.07.1989 and get the sale deed registered but the defendants refused to receive the said notice; the defendants were orally informed about the same. The respondent/plaintiff appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar along with balance amount of consideration on 12.07.1989 and 29.07.1989, but the defendants did not reach there and, therefore, it was clear that the defendants intended to avoid the performance of the contract. It was also stated by the respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he is still ready to perform his part of contract. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff also prayed for delivery of possession of the said house.