KUNDA Vs. MATHURABAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 135/2012 which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. The suit filed by the present appellant bearing Special Civil Suit No. 66/2004 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad and which was filed for relief of specific performance of contract, was decided in favour of appellant by the trial Court and this decision is set aside by the first appellate Court. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) The learned counsel for appellant submitted that substantial questions of law need to be formulated on the basis of grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, which are as follows :-

(3.) It is the case of appellant/plaintiff that deceased Smt. Mathurabai Jadhav was owner of land Gat No. 15, admeasuring 2 Acres 35 Guntas, situated at village Naigaon, Tahsil Gangapur and she had agreed to sell this property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 2,35,000/- under written agreement dated 16.11.1988. It is the case of plaintiff that she has paid Rs. 50,000/- as a part of consideration to Smt. Mathurabai and the remaining amount was to be paid within four months from the date of agreement and then the sale deed was to be executed. It is contended that there were some technical hurdles for execution of the sale deed and so, the sale deed was not executed within the prescribed time. It is the case of plaintiff that there were changes made in the revenue record regarding area of the suit property and as the changes were not finalized, the sale deed was not executed. It is the case of plaintiff that after such changes, she requested the promisor Smt. Mathurabai to execute the sale deed and Mathurabai said that, she wanted to take consent of her daughters, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and so, further time was taken by Mathurabai. It is the case of plaintiff that she was always ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of consideration, but the defendants did not show eagerness to fulfill their promise by executing the sale deed. It is contended that ultimately, plaintiff sent a notice by Registered Post A. D. on 19.7.2003 through her advocate, asking the defendants to complete the sale deed, but the notice was not accepted by the defendants. She had prayed for relief of specific performance of the contract as contained in aforesaid written document and in alternate, she had prayed for equitable reliefs.