FAKIRA RAMBHAU SHEWALE Vs. VASANT NARAYAN RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees passed for specific performance of the agreement to sell the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit, directing defendant no.1 (appellant no.1) to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent no. 1(plaintiff) and hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. All the defendants challenged the Trial Court's decree by filing the first appeal in the district court. The first appeal is dismissed, and the Trial Court's judgment and decree is confirmed. The present respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

(2.) The second appeal is admitted vide order dtd. 29/7/1992 on the questions of law framed in grounds (C), (F) and (G), which read as under:

(3.) It is the plaintiff's contention that in 1972, the suit property was encumbered, and the defendants were willing to sell the property to the plaintiff for Rs.48001.00, although the valuation was only Rs.20000.00. Accordingly, as per an oral agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.15000.00 and possession was handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff paid Rs.5000.00. Thus, the plaintiff paid a total of Rs.20000.00 before December 1973. Defendants recorded a statement before the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 ("the 1947 Act") regarding the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter entered into a written contract dtd. 31/12/1973 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.48,000.00. As per the written contract, out of the total consideration, a balance amount of Rs.33,001.00 was to be paid within four months, and possession was to be handed over on execution of the sale deed. There was a discrepancy in the oral agreement and the written contract about the balance consideration amount and possession. However, given the cordial relations with the defendants and the plaintiff's possession, he accepted the terms and conditions of the written contract.