BAPUSHAEB SRIPATRAO DHUMAL Vs. BHAGWANRAO ANANDRAO PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the original Plaintiffs against the decree dismissing their suit for specific performance of contract and granting relief of refund of consideration paid with a direction to the Plaintiffs to deliver possession of the suit land to the Defendant. The impugned decree is passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Satara in Spl. Civil Suit No. 33 of 1980 on 2-5-1981. The present Respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of original Defendant who died during the pendency of the appeal. The original Plaintiff No. 4 also died pending the appeal his heirs are also brought on record.

(2.) THE Appellants/plaintiffs filed suit in respect of agricultural lands bearing Block No. 1027-A and 1027-B of village Nandval, the total area of which is more than 3 hectors. Plaintiffs No.1 Bapusaheb Sripatrao Dhumal and original Defendant Bhagwanrao Anandrao Pawar were the close friends. The property is purchased in the name of plaintiff No.2 Chandrashekhar for and on behalf of the joint family of the plaintiffs. The Defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 30,000/- and executed an agreement on 16-2-1976. The agreement was registered on the same day. As per the agreement the Plaintiff had paid Rs. 11,075/- being the loan advanced by the Land Development Bank to the Defendant. The Defendant was also indebted to Vividh Karyakari Cooperative Society to the tune of Rs. 10,935/- Rs. 7000 were paid in the presence of Sub-Registrar. Thus out of the total consideration, an amount of Rs. 29,000/- were already paid and only Rs. 1000 /- were remained to be paid. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that in addition a sum of Rs. 3730/- was paid to the Defendant on different counts at different times to satisfy the needs of the Defendant and therefore, in the plaint it was stated that in fact Rs. 3196/- i.e. Rs. 196/over and above the agreed consideration have already been paid by the plaintiffs to the Defendant.It is also specifically contended that the relation of Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant were very cordial and therefore, different amounts were advanced to the Defendants by plaintiff No. 1 at different times. It was agreed that the Defendant would obtain permission of the Revenue Authorities for executing sale deed within one month from the date of the agreement. However, the Defendant did not make any attempt to seek permission and according to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant even did not apply for permission. The Plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the Defendant committed breach thereof. The plaintiffs now learn that it is not necessary to take permission of the Revenue Authorities for transfer. The Plaintiffs therefore called upon the Defendant to execute the sale deed as per the agreement, but the Defendant refused and hence notice dated 1-4-1978 was sent through their Advocate to the Defendant for the said purpose. The Defendant sent a false reply dated 13-4-1978. and refused to perform his part of the contract and the plaintiffs have therefore filed the above suit. The possession of the suit property was also given to the plaintiffs on the date of the agreement.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the agreement was with Plaintiff No. 1 he (Plaintiff No. 1) did not personally come to the Sub-Registrar's Office and he sent Plaintiff No.2 on the pretext that the Plaintiff No.1 was not keeping well. Plaintiff No.1 had told the Defendant that he would be coming to Koregaon to the office of the Sub-Registrar afterwards and at the 11th hour Plaintiff No. 2 said that Plaintiff No. 1 has not come as he had suddenly fallen sick and therefore, he asked the Defendant to execute the agreement in the name of Plaintiff No. 2. The Defendant also admitted that possession has been given but it was agreed that on the repayment of the loan the agreement of sale shall be cancelled and the Defendant shall be placed in possession of the suit property. As the agreement was not to be acted upon and there was no real transaction of sale, there was no question of Defendant making any application for permission to the Revenue Authorities and as such no application was filed by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim that they have made improvement in the land is also not correct and the suit deserves to be dismissed.