SHAMBHU DAYAL GOYAL Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree for declaration, specific performance of agreement to sell and perpetual injunction passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sheopur in Civil Suit No.07-A/2002.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit mainly with the allegations that there situates a shop (suit shop), which is comprised in immovable property in Todi Bazar, Sheopur. The suit shop was obtained by plaintiff's father on rent from defendant's father. Defendant is brother of wife of plaintiff's elder brother, namely Ram Avtar. After father's death, defendant disclosed that the suit shop was allotted to his share. He on 22.08.1988 entered into an oral agreement of sale in respect of ground floor premises (i.e. the suit shop) for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. Plaintiff paid Rs.20,000/- in cash towards part of consideration. Balance consideration was to be paid up to 22.07.1988 and in case of delay, interest was made payable. It was further agreed that on receipt of payment of entire consideration, the plaintiff would cease to be a tenant in the suit shop and would remain in occupation as its owner. Plaintiff paid in all Rs.1,71,000/- up to 22.07.1988 on various dates. Balance amount with interest to the tune of Rs.9,762/- was adjusted by the defendant in his shop's account. Thus, plaintiff ceased to be a tenant with effect from 12.02.1990 and continued in occupation of the suit shop as its owner. Plaintiff made the payment of house tax thereafter till August, 1999, when the name of the defendant was mutated in the municipal record. However, the plaintiff did not insist for execution of registered sale-deed in view of close relationship with the defendant. Defendant in July, 2000, issued notice through his lawyer for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. It was duly replied by the plaintiff, mentioning therein about the oral sale agreement as well as demanding execution of the registered sale-deed in his favour. Defendant did not pay any heed to it. Hence, the suit was instituted on 01.03.2002 for the following reliefs: -

(3.) Defendant submitted his written statement, denying thereby claim of the plaintiff. He, inter alia, stated that Civil Suit No.68-A/2000 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent is also pending against the plaintiff in the Court of 2 nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Sheopur. According to him, plaintiff is a tenant in the suit shop. However, it has been denied that the defendant entered into an oral or written agreement to sell the suit shop to the plaintiff. It is denied that the defendant received any amount towards consideration. Defendant issued a notice on 22.07.2000 by registered post to the plaintiff for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Plaintiff, despite service of notice, did not give any reply and did not take any objection. Defendant, after expiry of the prescribed period, instituted a suit on 14.11.2000 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit of the plaintiff is concocted one. This apart, the suit is also barred by limitation.