UKARDA Vs. TRIMBAK S/O KASHIRAO UGLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Second Appeal, the original plaintiff is challenging concurrent judgments delivered by the courts below, whereby his suit for specific performance came to be dismissed. Both the courts have found that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract, basically on the ground that the plaintiff did not take steps within time to seek permission then required for sale of agricultural land. The Second Appeal has been admitted on 26.6.1992 mentioning that ground nos. D and E in memo of appeal shall be the substantial questions of law. Those grounds are as under :

(2.) Advocate Shri Anand Parchure, for appellant contends that both the courts have ignored the fact that total sale consideration fixed between the parties was Rs. 5625/- and out of it during life time of original owner Kashirao, Rs. 4525/- were already paid. He states that Kashirao being land owner also applied for grant of permission to Sub Divisional Officer, to sale suit land to the present appellant, but then he expired on 6.10.1975. He further states that after his death another agreement was entered into between the parties vide Exh.35 and balance amount of Rs. 1100/- was also paid at that time. He contends that thus the appellant / plaintiff had paid full amount of sale consideration and therefore, he was waiting for permission only to be granted by the Sub Divisional Officer and was therefore ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

(3.) Advocate Shri A.V. Bhide, appearing for respondents on the other hand contends that the first agreement i.e. Exh.33 was between Kashirao and present appellant, whereby earlier payment of Rs. 2103/- was adjusted and additional amount of Rs. 2422/- was paid by the appellant to the deceased and therefore on the date of Exh.33 i.e. 15.5.1974 total amount of Rs. 4525/- only was received by the deceased. He further argues that after the death of Kashirao on 6.10.1975, fresh agreement in the shape of receipt Exh.35, was entered into on 12.2.1976 with Trimbak son of Kashirao and no application for permission was moved thereafter. He contends that both the courts have observed that the appellant/plaintiff could have applied for permission. He further states that after the death of Kashirao, suit for specific performance was filed against his son Trimbak and his two daughters and the daughters specifically pointed out that they have not received amount of Rs. 1100/- at all from the appellant. He therefore, argues that in this position when no permission was again applied for and when complete amount was not paid to the land owners as contended by the appellant/plaintiff, specific performance has been rightly denied. He contends that readiness and willingness is not the only reason given by the courts to deny specific performance and in view of the non payment to all owners, discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act has also been exercised.