BANDU AND ORS. Vs. MAROTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 134/1994, which was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Biloli and also against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 16/1993, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Biloli. The suit filed by present appellants for relief of specific performance of contract is dismissed by the trial Court and the decision is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) THIS Court (other Hon'ble Judge) admitted appeal on 29.4.2004. It appears that due to oversight, specific substantial questions of law were not formulated. The prayer clause of the appeal also shows that appellant has prayed for relief of only remanding the matter to the trial Court for recording more evidence. On the basis of the contentions made in the appeal memo and the grounds, it can be said that appellant now wants to show that he was living in joint family with Mahajan and the agreement in question was made by Mahajan for the benefit of joint Hindu family. The appellant also wants to show that the entries made in the revenue record are not in consonance with the factual position. Thus, at the most, the substantial question of law can be, "as to whether the Courts below have failed to consider the material available on the record and that has laid to the wrong inference -

(3.) IT is contended by the plaintiff that though he was elder brother, he got the agreement executed in the name of Mahajan, but the property was to be purchased for the benefit of the joint family. It is contended that after the death of Mahajan, plaintiff was taking care of his family, but as widow of Mahajan has some misunderstanding against him, she is required to be made a defendant in the suit.