PRAMOD BHAURAOJI MAHAJAN Vs. RAJENDRA KISNAJI MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the 2ndAd-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No.127/2001 dtd. 18/8/2005, which was preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat, District Wardha in Regular Civil Suit No.5/1996, dtd. 25/6/2001. The parties are referred to their original status.

(2.) The plaintiff is owner of the suit property bearing Survey No.260/2, admeasuring 1.10 HR., situated at village Pawani, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha. A contract to sale on a stamp-paper at Exhibit No.27 of the suit property dtd. 20/3/1991 was executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1, for the consideration amount of Rs.30,000.00. That time Rs.20,000.00 out of consideration amount was paid to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 is son of defendant No.2. The possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendants. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000.00 was agreed to be paid on or before 15/3/1992 and, thereafter, sale-deed was to be executed. The plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the sale- deed, but defendant No.1 was not having remaining amount of consideration with him. The plaintiff requested him and insisted for the execution of sale-deed. He was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Therefore, sale-deed was not executed. The plaintiff sent a notice (Exhibit-28) to the defendants for execution of sale-deed. Defendant No.1 sent a reply to the said notice (Exhibit-66) and contended that he is ready to pay the remaining consideration amount. He communicated to the plaintiff to deposit the loan amount of the Co-operative Society, Pawani taken on the said land. It is averred that the defendants did nothing thereafter. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the suit property.

(3.) The Defendants contended that they were ready to get execute a sale-deed, but the plaintiff prolonged and avoided to execute it. At the time of marriage of plaintiff, in the year 1992, he took Rs.3,000.00 from the defendants. That time defendants asked to a plaintiff to execute the sale-deed, but the plaintiff said that 'they are relatives of each other's and the sale-deed can be executed at any time', however, it was not executed deliberately. The defendants are ready to execute the sale-deed by paying remaining amount of consideration. There is no recital as condition of forfeiture of earnest money in the contract to sale. A loan amount of Co-operative Society was not paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to bring no due certificate from the Co-operative Society, he did not secure it.