BISHAMBHAR NATH AGARWAL Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Agra. The lower Court has decreed the suit of the respondents for specific performance of the contract. The defendant No.1 has been directed to execute a sale-deed within a period of three months after receiving the amount of sale consideration and rent up to 31st October, 1974-75 as is disclosed in the compromise entered into between the parties. The defendant No.1 was further directed to obtain permission from the District Magistrate, if necessary. It was ordered that in case defendant No.1 failed to comply the decree, then the sale-deed would be executed through Court at the cost of the appellant. It has also been declared that after 31st October, 1975, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 are not required to pay rent or interest to defendant No.1.

(2.) It is an admitted case between the parties that the house in dispute situated at Agra belonged to the plaintiffs. The sale-deed in respect of this property was-executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 on 25-4-1968. The plaintiff-respondents, however, continued to reside in this house. They had agreed to pay rent. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents that they had made improvements in the house. It was worth rupees two lacs in 1968. As they were in need of money, they had approached defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 had agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/-. The defendant No.1 is a shrewd lawyer. He got the sale-deed executed on 25-4-1968 and also as a security for his money advanced as a loan got a rent note executed. There was no transfer of possession and the plaintiff-respondents continued to be in possession. Later on the defendant no.1 changed his mind and started asserting his ownership on the property in dispute. Consequently plaintiffs had to file suit No.293 of 1973 Kishan Chand v. Bishambhar Nath Agarwal in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra. It is also worth mentioning that the defendant No.1 also filed suit No.30 of 1973 in the Court of District Judge, Agra for ejectment and realisation of rent against the plaintiff respondents.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that a compromise had taken place between the parties of the above two suits. It was agreed by this compromise that the plaintiff-respondents would pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,120/- (Rupees one lac two thousand, one hundred twenty only) to the defendant within a period of two years starting from 1-11-1973 and latest up to 31st October, 1975. The plaintiffs-were also given liberty to pay it in instalments or in one lump sum at their convenience. The plaintiffs were to pay interest in the form of rent at the rate of Rs. 1,530/- per mensem. At such payment, it was agreed, the defendant No.1 will execute the reconveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff of the property in dispute. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that on account of his difficulty the interest amount could not be paid. They could pay only a sum of Rs. 9,180/-. However, they had made arrangement for the payment of entire sale consideration and the entire balance of interest in the form of loan and requested the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents by serving a notice on 23-10-1975. It had been urged that the defendant No.1 neither obtained the permission to sell nor took any steps to obtain permission. Despite service of the notice the defendant No.1 did not send any reply. The plaintiffs had also sent a telegram on 29-10-1975 requesting the defendant No.1 to come with permission and execute the sale-deed as agreed upon. Ultimately the plaintiff No.3 Mahesh Chandra, along with his sister's husband M.C. Agarwal and the husband of the daughter of the plaintiff's elder sister R.C. Agarwal and some other persons, approached the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed after obtaining the permission from District Magistrate but the defendant No.1 avoided contact with the aforesaid persons. Under these circumstances Mahesh Chandra Banshal had sent telegram to defendant No.1 from Gwalior. On 31st October, 1975 the plaintiffs went to the office of the Sub-Registrar with necessary stamps and financiers Permanand Puri and Bishnu Ram Nagar. The plaintiffs had full arrangement to pay the entire sale consideration and the balance amount of the interest described as the rent in compromise but the defendant No.1 did hot turn up. The plaintiff remained in the Sub-Registrar's Office from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. but the defendant No.1 did not turn up to execute the sale deed. It was averred that the plaintiffs were always willing and ready to get the sale deed executed but the defendant No.1 had not executed the sale deed. On the basis of these pleadings a decree of specific performance of the contract as contained in compromise made in suit No.293 of 1976 was sought. A declaration that after 31-10-75 the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 are not liable to pay rent to the defendant No.1 was also prayed for.