DAMODAR Vs. VIJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal, the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively challenge the concurrent judgements granting a decree of specific performance in favour of the original plaintiff-respondent. Both the courts below have concurrently held that on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 22-12-1983 of a house for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000/-, the plaintiff was entitled to have specific performance of that agreement. The courts below have also held that the defendant No. 2, who was a subsequent purchaser, was also liable to join the defendant No. 1 in the specific performance by a sale in favour of the original plaintiff, on the basis of that agreement.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the plaintiffs case is that he agreed to purchase the house of defendant No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/- by way of an agreement which was executed by defendant No. 1 for that purpose on 22-12-1983. Rs. 5000/- were paid as the earnest money and the registered sale-deed was to be executed within six months. It is claimed that thereafter the plaintiff had approached the defendant No. 1 for a sale-deed, showing his willingness to pay Rs. 15,000/ -. However, the defendant No. 1 did not pay heed to it. The plaintiff also pleaded that in pursuance of the agreement, he had attended the office of the Sub-Registrar for getting the sale-deed executed, but the defendant No. 1 failed to appear. He, therefore, issued a legal notice immediately thereafter, but to no effect. He, therefore, also got a legal notice published in a local Daily on 16-7-1984 and also issued a telegraphic notice, but again there was no response from the defendant No. 1 and, hence on these allegations, he filed the suit for specific performance.

(3.) INITIALLY, the defendant No. 2 was not made a party but during the pendency of the suit, firstly, the defendant No. 2 was joined as a party as it is claimed that the plaintiff had come to know about a sale having been made in his favour of the suit house by the defendant No. 1 on 11-5-1984 itself. Though the defendant No. 2, on the basis of the subsequent sale to him was joined as a party in the month of February, 1985, an amendment was made to the plaint only on 1-8-1988 bringing to the Courts notice the subsequent sale dated 11-5-1984 by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 as also claiming the relief against defendant No. 2 also.