VENUNATH Vs. LIMBABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. M.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.L.Dharashive, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (i) to 2 (v) at length.

(2.) By this Appeal, u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ' C.P.C.' ), original defendant No. 2 has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 30/06/1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ausa in R.C.S. No. 62/1980, as also the Judgment and decree dated 11/02/1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Latur in R.C.A. No. 96 of 1986. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by Limbabai D/o Abaji Jamdar through her legal representative for specific performance of contract dated 12/08/1973. The Courts below directed the legal representative of defendant No. 1 Niranjan and defendant No. 2 Venunath Sambha More to jointly execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after accepting the consideration of Rs. 500/ (Rupees Five Hundred only ) in respect of house bearing 1166 (old), which is renumbered as 1318/1 (new) admeasuring EastWest 87 feet from southern side and 57 feet from northern side and 32 1/2 feet NorthSouth including 7 khan Dhaba bounded by Govt. road from East, by the land and house of Dwarkadas from West, by the house of Sambha More from South and the open house No. 1166/1 from northern side at Ausa. (for short, ' suit house ' ). The Courts below also declared that the sale deed dated 16/07/1977 executed by defendant No. 1 Niranjan in favour of defendant No. 2 Venunath Sambha More is not binding on the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is permanently restrained from causing any interference or obstruction in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over suit house. The parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their status in the trial Court. The relevant and material facts giving rise to the present Second Appeal are as follows.

(3.) The plaintiff instituted Suit for specific performance of contract dated 12/08/1973 and for perpetual injunction interalia contending that defendant No. 1 Niranjan was the exclusive owner of the suit house. By an agreement dated 12/08/1973 (Exh. 56), defendant No. 1 agreed to sell his house to Limbabai, the original Plaintiff (since deceased), for total consideration of Rs. 1500/ (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only ). Defendant No. 1 accepted Rs. 1000/ (Rupees One Thousand only ) towards earnest money. Defendant No. 1 also executed a receipt at Exh. 57 and put plaintiff Limbabai in possession of the suit house. It is further contended that the plaintiff had applied to defendant No. 1 to specifically perform his part of contract, but defendant No. 1 had not done so. The plaintiff further asserted that he was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 16/07/1977, defendant No. 2 purchased the suit house despite having notice that defendant No. 1 had already agreed to sell suit house to the plaintiff and handed over possession. The cause of action accrued to plaintiff on 16/07/1977. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted Suit for specific performance of agreement of the suit house and for perpetual injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from causing any interference or obstruction in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's possession over the suit house.