CHINTAMAN SITARAM BAJAD Vs. SHANKAR SONAJI SHINGNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1985 by the Additional District Judge, Buldana, on 14.8.1989, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 140 of 1980 by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Mehkar, on 16.2.1985.

(2.) The original appellant Chintaman (now dead) was the original defendant in a suit filed against him for enforcing specific performance of contract by the respondent, the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as they were originally arrayed in the civil suit.

(3.) It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant being owner in possession of agricultural land bearing survey no. 7, had agreed to sell 18 acres out of the same, situated at village Balsamudra, Tq. Mehkar, district Buldana, to him for a total consideration of Rs.21,600/. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had struck an agreement with him at village Shendurjana, Tq. Mehkar, on 10.6.1977. It was agreed between them that an amount of Rs.15,000/ would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of "Isar Pavati" or earnest money receipt and the remaining amount of consideration would be paid thereafter within three years and also the saledeed would be executed within three years from the date of earnest money receipt. They had also agreed that at the time of execution of the saledeed, the expenses for which would be borne by the plaintiff, possession of the said agricultural land, hereinafter referred to as the suit land, would be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. They had further agreed that if the defendant failed to abide by these terms and conditions, the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the saledeed of the suit land executed through Court. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant purchased some stamp papers required for execution of the earnest money receipt and on 15.6.1977, accepting the earnest money of Rs.15,000/ from him in cash, the defendant executed earnest money receipt incorporating all these terms and conditions. Thereafter, the plaintiff had urged the defendant to accept the remaining amount of consideration and also execute the saledeed, but the defendant avoided to accept the remaining consideration and also execute the saledeed. Therefore, on 5.6.1980 the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant calling upon him to execute the saledeed by accepting the remaining amount of consideration, but in vain. Left with no option, a suit was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for enforcing the specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff had also alternatively claimed the relief of refund of earnest money with interest