SANGITA BAPU HOLE Vs. VILAS DHYANDEO HOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This second appeal challenges two concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit and ordering specific performance of the suit agreement for sale.

(3.) The suit was filed by the Respondent herein (original plaintiff), who was an agreement purchaser in respect of the suit property against the Appellant herein (original defendant). It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property consisting of about 85 R land out of Gat No.535 described in the plaint for a consideration of Rs.17 lakhs under this agreement. On 21 June 2007, the Plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as earnest money to the defendant in the presence of panchas. Against such payment, the suit agreement for sale was executed between the parties. It was the plaintiff's case that the defendant had already handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, agreeing to execute a sale deed within one month of the execution of the agreement for sale. Since the defendant was avoiding to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff sent a notice through his advocate on 6 September 2007 calling for execution of the sale deed. In response to this notice, the defendant replied through her advocate denying the suit agreement for sale or the consideration agreed or even the payment of earnest money. The defendant submitted that on 8 October 2007, she had returned the amount of Rupees One lakh paid as earnest money and accordingly, the plaintiff returned her the instrument of visar pavati and cancelled the sale transaction. The trial court, accordingly, framed issues concerning the existence and legality of the suit agreement for sale and payment of earnest money as well as the defendant's case of return of amount and cancellation of the sale transaction as also the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and his entitlement to specific performance thereof. The trial court held all these issues, referred to above, in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit ordering execution of a sale deed. This decree was upheld in the defendant's appeal by the District Court at Baramati.