CHANDRAHAS NARAYAN SHETTY Vs. MISRIBAI RAMKUVAR PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein instituted Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 1982 in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane for seeking specific performance against respondents in regard to 3 shops and a flat (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') situate within the limits of Kalyan Municipal Council to be constructed on landbearing Survey Nos. more particularly set out in the plaint.

(2.) The learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge') decided the suit by judgment and decree dated 24th October, 1981 and rejected the prayer for specific performance. The learned trial Judge however granted money decree against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the extent of Rs. 5,501/ - alongwith the interest more particularly set out in the operative part of the judgment and decree dated 24th October, 1989. This judgment and decree dated 24th October, 1989 is challenged in this first appeal. Few facts necessary for the disposal of the first appeal are as under.

(3.) The appellant original plaintiff claims that he entered into an oral agreement with one Mr. Kanjibhai being partner of the firm M/s. Thakkar i.e. respondent No. 3 for purchase of 3 shops and one flat more particularly set out in the plaint. According to the appellant, the said transaction was being carried out by defendant No. 3 in its capacity as sole selling agent of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who were the owners in respect of the suit property which was to be sold in favour of the appellant. According to the appellant the shop Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were agreed to be sold and that they were subsequently renumbered as shop Nos. 9, 8 and 7 respectively. According to the appellant, the appellant paid to said Kanjibhai in all a sum of Rs. 5,501/- and also a sum of Rs. 1,38,375/- towards the transaction in question. The appellant claims that as the oral agreement was not specifically performed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the appellant had to institute the suit. Respondent No. 4 happens to be a subsequent purchaser in regard to shop Nos. 7 and 8.