DATTATRAYA BAJIRAO KALE Vs. DINKAR PANDURANG PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved with the concurrent findings of facts by the trial as well as the First Appellate Court, appellant/original defendant No.5 has approached this Court by preferring a second appeal amongst following facts and grounds.

(2.) Respondent No.1 - Dinkar Pandurang Pawar was the original plaintiff. After his death, his legal heirs - respondents No.[1A] to 1[G] and respondents No.2 to 5 have been brought on record as his legal representatives, who have prosecuted the suit before the Courts below.

(3.) Regular Civil Suit No.218 of 1991 was filed by the original plaintiff for specific performance of contract and declaration to the effect that a sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of appellant herein/defendant No.5 dtd. 1/3/1999 was not bound upon him in respect of Gat No.88, Gat No.224 and Gat No.213 and Gat No.77 situate at Village Jainakwadi, Baramati (for short "suit property"). There was a registered agreement of sale between deceased Nivrutti Krishna Mane and the plaintiff qua the suit property on 3/5/1974. Nivrutti Mane agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3250.00 and had accepted Rs.2000.00 towards earnest money. It was agreed between the parties that the sale deed in respect of the suit property would be executed as and when deceased Nivruti would obtain permission from the competent authority to sell the suit property, meaning thereby, time was not the essence of contract. It is the contention of the plaintiff that on 3/5/1974 itself deceased Nivrutti Mane had delivered possession of the suit property by executing possession receipt.