KAILASHCHANDRA AND ORS. Vs. GHANSHYAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of notice for final disposal the learned counsel for the parties are heard at length.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent No. 1 in both the appeals that on 29/01/2010 an agreement was entered into for sale of agricultural land admeasuring 4H 28R. The rate agreed was Rs. 14 lakhs per acre that was to be paid within period of six months. A token amount of Rs. 5 lakhs being earnest amount was paid to the defendants. It was further agreed that the land would be measured and the deal would be completed before the stipulated period. According to the plaintiff no steps were taken by the defendants to complete aforesaid agreement and hence on 01/07/2010 a notice was issued to the defendants calling upon them to remain present before the Sub -registrar on 26/07/2010 and accept the consideration. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was present before the Sub -Registrar on 26/07/2010 but the defendants did not turn up. On 19/07/2010 a reply was sent to the notice issued by the plaintiff to which there was a further reply by the plaintiff. Ultimately on 06/10/2010 suit for specific performance of aforesaid agreement came to be filed. In alternate there was a claim for damages.

(3.) SHRI R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals submitted that there was no concluded contract between the parties. It was submitted that the document in question merely contemplated an agreement to further enter into an agreement of sale. According to learned counsel perusal of the document dated 29/01/2010 indicated that no terms had been agreed to between the parties and it was merely stated that a token amount of Rs. 5 lakhs had been received. It was further submitted that the document was not signed by the defendant No. 2. The case of the plaintiff that there was legal necessity on the part of the defendants to alienate the suit property was also not acceptable in absence of any material in that regard. It was then submitted that the trial Court without recording any finding that a prima facie case had been made out, proceeded to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property. The equities were also not considered by the trial Court while passing the order of injunction. It was then submitted that the document in question was neither adequately stamped nor was it registered. Hence no injunction could have been granted by relying upon said document. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on following decisions :