KUSUM HARI Vs. VITHAL VISHNUDAS DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants herein have challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 30th September 1987 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No.143 of 1981 whereby the suit filed by the Respondent herein for specific performance of the contract has been decreed. The Appellants have been directed to execute the Sale Deed of the suit property in favour of the Respondents on receiving remaining amount of the consideration.

(2.) THE late mother and grand mother of the Appellants Ramabai expired on 15th January, 1980. Before the death, she had entered into an Agreement to Sale with the Respondent by Agreement dated 24th April, 1979. The time for performing the contract was extended by endorsement in the same Agreement on 28th August, 1979. The Respondent even before the death of the mother of Appellant No.1 entered into correspondence with the Appellant No.1 informing the Appellant of the calling on the Appellant No.1 also to join their late mother in selling the property. By letter dated 13th November, 1979 the Respondent informed the Appellant No.1 that in case the Appellant No.1 refused to give consent and if for that reason the Respondent terminates the transaction, the amounts paid would have to be returned with interest. The Respondents have produced Bank Pass Book in the course of evidence to show that an amount of Rs.10,000/- have been paid as earnest money to the deceased Ramabai before her death. Hence the suit for specific performance.

(3.) THE trial Court framed several Issues. The trial Court held that deceased Ramabai had a right, title and interest in the suit property and she had executed the Agreement of Sale on 24th July 1979 in favour of the Respondent. The trial court answered in negative the Issue raised by the Appellant that the Agreement was entered into with the late Ramabai by the Respondent fraudulently and/or under coercion. The trial Court also answered in the negative that the Agreement was forged. The trial Court answered in the affirmative the Issue that the Agreement was forged. The trial Court answered in the affirmative the Issue that the Respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Issues pertaining to refund of the earnest money and damages were not answered as according to the Judge once he had come to the conclusion that the agreement could be specifically enforced, the other issues did not survive.