KALANDI BABURAO RAUL Vs. DATTU DAMU THAKARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants herein are raising challenge to the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1996, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhed in Regular Civil Suit No.187/1990, whereby suit presented by plaintiffs - appellants herein claiming relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 06.11.1989 has been dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been confirmed in an appeal presented at the instance of plaintiffs - appellants being R.C.A. No.402/96, by the Extra Joint District Judge, Ahmednagar, vide judgment and order dated 15.09.2000.

(2.) Plaintiffs have approached the Court with a contention that in view of the registered agreement dated 06.11.1989, the defendant has agreed to alienate an area to the extent of 42 ares (275 feet x 162 feet) out of agricultural land S.No.454/2 of village Jamkhed in favour of plaintiffs for consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Plaintiffs advanced an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards earnest amount and it was agreed between the parties that balance of amount shall be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. A condition was incorporated in the agreement of sale that balance of amount shall be paid till 06.10.1990 or after grant of permission for conversion of user of land for non agricultural purpose. It was also settled between the parties that possession shall have to be handed over after execution of the sale deed. According to the plaintiffs, they were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they asked the defendant to execute the sale deed. However, defendant did not comply with his part of agreement. As such, plaintiffs called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed after accepting balance consideration of Rs.10,000/-, by issuing notice on 04.10.1990.

(3.) Defendant caused his appearance in response to the suit summons and resisted suit claim by filing written statement at Exhibit-18. According to the defendant, there is no portion of 42 ares land, out of S.No.454/2. According to the defendant, land has been allotted to his family in accordance with provisions of Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the said Act'), and as such, for alienating the property, permission of appropriate authority is required.