ANUSAYA W/O BAJRANG Vs. RAGHUNATH SHANKAR RAHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants in Second Appeal No. 573 of 1993 are the two Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1979 which the Respondent No. 1 had filed against them as well as the Respondent No. 2. That suit was concerning a house property of the size of 53ft.x 13.25ft. situated at House Nos. 333 -A and 334 -A at Patan, District Satara. The Respondent No. 1 in this Appeal had filed the said suit for reconveyance concerning the said house property and possession thereof. The Respondent No. 2 to this Appeal is the original Defendant No. 3 who was occupying a part of the premises and by now he has given a writing that he has no concern or interest in the premises. As of now the contest remains only between the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1989. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Respondent No. 1 herein preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 1989 to the District Court at Satara. That Appeal came to be allowed by the judgment and decree of Second Additional District Judge, Satara dated 19th July, 1993, wherein the learned Judge ordered the Appellant No. 1 herein to execute a registered sale deed in favour of Respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit house. The Appellant No. 1 was permitted to receive the amount deposited by the Respondent No. 1 in that Court. Some consequential directions were also given. The judgment however did not specifically include a direction to hand over possession of the suit property. Second Appeal No. 573 of 1993 is filed against the appellate judgment and decree. The other connected Second Appeal No. 280 of 1994 is filed by the Respondent No. 1 in this Appeal i.e. the original Plaintiff being aggrieved by the absence of the specific direction that the possession of the suit property be given to the original Plaintiff. Second Appeal No. 573 of 1993 has been admitted in view of the substantial questions of law raised in grounds (a) to (e) thereof and in the order admitting the appeal there is also a reference to the question of Plaintiff being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract which is ground (h). Second Appeal No. 280 of 1994 is admitted thereafter, it being a cross appeal.

(3.) THE facts leading to the controversy in these two Appeals are as under: - The parties in this litigation arc related to each other and it appears that the Respondent No. 1 was in urgent need of some funds in the year 1964. He therefore entered into an agreement of sale of the above referred house property with the Appellant No. 1 on 1st April, 1964. Appellant No. 2 is the husband of Appellant No. 1 and was employed in police force. The agreement provided that the house property was being sold for an amount of Rs. 3.000/ -. An amount of Rs. 1500/ - was paid at that time itself and the remaining amount was to be paid later on by the time conveyance was effected, though possession was handed over forthwith. On the same day, another agreement for reconveyance was signed between the parties and it provided that within a period of 5 years after the expiry of 10 years from the date of the sale deed, the Appellant No. 1 herein was to reconvey the property to the Respondent No. 1 on accepting the amount of Rs. 3,000/ -, Later on the balance payment was made and a regular sale deed w/s entered into between the parties on 27th August, 1964 in pursuance to the earlier referred agreement of sale made on 1st April, 1964. It is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that on 22nd August, 1974 he gave a notice to the Appellant No. 1 to reconvey the property. In her reply dated 5th September, 1974, the Appellant No. 1 disputed the fact of reconveyance agreement itself. Another notice was subsequently given by the Respondent No. 1 on 25th March, 1976, which was replied on 27th March, 1976. In view of this refusal by the Appellant No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 was constrained to file the above referred suit which he filed on 9th March, 1979 seeking a reconveyance of the property in terms of the above referred agreement for reconveyance. As stated above, the Trial Court dismissed the suit whereas the same was decreed in Appeal though specific direction for handing over possession remained to be passed.