CHAMELIBAI BABURAO NHAVI Vs. BRIJLAL EKNATH PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appellants are the original defendants and present respondents are the original plaintiffs. Present appellants challenge the concurrent findings in the Second Appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar for appellants and learned Advocate Mr. Pavan Pawar holding for learned Advocate Mr. H.P. Randhir for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) Before the rival contentions are considered the background is take a note of, original plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit No.29/2006 before Civil Judge Junior Division, Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. They had come with a case that the defendant No.1's husband and defendant No.2 to 6's father deceased Babu Lahanu Nhavi was the owner of land Gat No.9/1 admeasuring 02 H 64 R and barren land admeasuring 01 H 76 R, that is, in all 04 H 40 R situated at village Purnad, Tq. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon. The said land could not have been sold without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities. Plaintiffs contended that Babu had entered into agreement, to sell the said suit land to them and a written registered agreement was executed on 27/8/2001 for a consideration of Rs.78,000.00. On the date of the agreement the plaintiffs had paid amount of Rs.55,000.00 as earnest to Babu. It was decided that the remaining amount of Rs.23,000.00 would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was also agreed to bring the permission required under Sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "B.T. and A.L. Act") from the competent authority. Plaintiffs further contend that no efforts were made by Babu in his life time to get the said permission, however, at the time of executing the said agreement possession of the land was parted with the plaintiffs by Babu. Each and every time plaintiffs used to make inquiry with Babu about the permission but he used to avoid by saying that there is no hurry. Babu expired on 21/3/2005 and the land got mutated in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 6. Plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, that is, by giving remaining amount of Rs.23,000.00. They were ready to get the sale deed executed, and therefore, they asked defendant Nos.1 to 6 to bring the permission, but defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 changed their statement before the Sub Divisional Officer and stated that permission should not be granted. Under such circumstance, the said application came to be disposed of. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 2 obstructed the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land on 16/6/2006, and therefore, they filed the suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction.