DADASAHEB DHONDIBA JAGTAP Vs. ANANT SIVRAM POMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Dadasaheb jagtap, the original plaintiff, in Regular Civil suit No. 101 of 1980 and the defendant in regular Civil Suit No. 131 of 182, has preferred these two appeal against the judgment and Order passed by the Court of 3rd additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 196 of 1987 and Civil Appeal no. 197 of 1987, whereby, both the said appeals were allowed and the decree for specific performance granted by the Court of cjjd, Saswad, in favour of the Original plaintiff was set aside and the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 131 of 1982 was also set aside and the suit filed by Anant poman, the present respondent was decreed in his favour and present appellant dadasaheb Jagtap was directed to hand over possession of the suit property to anantrao Poman.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to these two appeals are as under : the suit property bearing Survey No. 114 situated at Village Supla, Taluka: purandar, District Pune is owned by the respondent. On 12. 6. 1972 he agreed to sale 2 Ane 5 paisa share out of the suit land to appellant for Rs. 14,000/- and executed an agreement to sale in favour of the appellant. The appellant had paid Rs. 3000/- to respondent on 24. 4. 1972. On the date of the agreement he paid an additional amount of Rs. 2000/- and thus the respondent agreed that out of the sale price of Rs. 14,000/- he received Rs. 5000/- towards the transaction by way of earnest money. On the date of the agreement the respondent handed over possession of the suit property to the Appellant and accordingly. Accordingly, necessary statement was made in the agrement. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the sale-deed of the property was to be executed within one month from obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authority for the said sale transaction. It was also agreed that if the appellant fails to get the sale-deed executed within time as agreed then the amount of earnest money would be fortified and if the respondents fail to execute the sale-deed, then the appellants would be at liberty to get the sale-deed executed through Court. According to appellant after the agreement to sale, both the parties submitted joint application to the concerned authorities seeking permission for the sale transaction. However, in August 1997 it transpired that there was no necessity to seek permission and thus the hurdle in getting the sale-deed executed was removed. The appellant thereafter, asked the respondent from time to time to execute the saledeed. However, the respondent avoided. The appellant was paying the taxes of the suit property. On 1. 5. 1980 when the Appellant was supplying water to his land, the Respondent obstructed and told him that he would sale his land to some other person. Hence on 30. 5. 1980 the Appellant filed regular Civil Suit No. 101 of 1980 against the Respondent for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from obstructing the Appellants possession of the suit land. Alternatively, he also prayed for specific performance for agreement to sale. However, he paid the Court fee Stamp only on his claim with regard to declaration and injunction.

(3.) On the date of filing of the suit, the appellant also filed Application Exhibit 6 for temporary injunction. The Respondent filed his written say Exhibit 16 and opposed the said application and contended that there was no transaction of agreement to sale and he had only obtained Rs. 5000/-by way of loan from the Appellant. He also contended that the Appellant has not given the boundaries of the land alleged to have been handed over to him and as such the suit is not maintainable. The respondent subsequently filed pursis and took same contentions in his written statement. During the pendency of the said suit the trial court was pleased to grant ad interim injunction against the respondent.