RAOSAHEB Vs. KANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is original plaintiff's Second Appeal who failed in obtaining decree for specific performance in the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. Initially, the appellant (plaintiff) has filed Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2012 seeking decree of specific performance of an agreement dt.12.2.1998 relating to immovable property namely land bearing Survey No.141 situated at mouza Waghada, Taluqa Seloo, District Wardha. At the time of execution of agreement, total consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- was fixed, out of which the plaintiff had paid partial consideration of Rs.80,000/-. It was decided between the parties to execute the sale deed as per convenience of both on or before 1.2.1999. The plaintiff was put in physical possession of the suit property on the date of agreement. It is plaintiff's case that the suit property was jointly purchased by defendant's late father Chhaguram along with one Gulab. It was agreed that the suit property was to be separated from the property of Gulab by carrying necessary mutation entry to the revenue record of the suit property. It is plaintiff's case that, during the life time of Chhaguram, separate entry was not effected in the revenue record of the suit property. After his death, the defendants had also not separated the property and therefore, despite plaintiffs' readiness and willingness, the sale deed was not executed. It is plaintiffs' case that they requested many-a-times to the defendants to move to the Competent Authority for separation of 7/12 extracts, but latter failed.

(2.) It was the defence of respondents/defendants in the trial Court that their predecessor Chhaguram had borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiffs, against which the plaintiffs had obtained blank signed paper. Precisely, the defendants denied execution of agreement to sell as well as readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiffs. Moreover, the suit was specifically resisted on the ground of limitation.

(3.) The parties went to the trial on such pleadings. The trial Court, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants' predecessor Chhaguram had executed the agreement to sell dated 12.2.1998 regarding the suit property. Moreover, it was held that the suit is barred by limitation and in consequence, the suit came to be dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 9.11.2017.