LAKSHMI BAI Vs. JAGDISH DHULEJI VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission. This appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dtd. 22/8/2019 passed in Regular Civil Appeal 8-A/2018 by the Ist Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 29/1/2018 passed in Civil Suit No.46-A/2016 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh whereby the claim of plaintiffs/respondents for specific performance of contract dtd. 14/8/2007 and for permanent injunction has been decreed while the counter claim of defendants for eviction of the plaintiffs from the suit premises had been dismissed.

(2.) Defendant No.1 Lakshmi Bai is the owner of the suit house No.13-14 total area 1024 sq.feet, ward No.5, Basod Gali, Narsinghar, in which plaintiffs are residing. As per plaintiffs on 14/8/2007 defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with Gulab Bai, their mother, for sale of the suit house in her favour for a total consideration of Rs.45,000.00 which was paid in entirety that day itself. A notarized agreement to sale was also executed on that day in which defendant No.2 had also signed as a consentor. It was agreed that whenever Gulab Bai would desire defendant No.1 would execute the requisite sale deed in her favour Gulab Bai and after her plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit house ever since 14/8/2007. Gulab Bai had died on 22/7/2015 and plaintiffs are her legal heirs.

(3.) Further case of plaintiffs is that subsequent to execution of the agreement Gulab Bai and after her death they repeatedly requested defendants to execute the sale deed with respect to the suit house but they have failed to do so. On 5/7/2015 defendants had refused to execute the sale deed in favour of Gulab Bai pursuant to which she issued a notice on 9/7/2015 which was replied to by defendant No.1 on 16/7/2015 in which the agreement to sale itself was denied by her. On 3/2/2016 defendant No.1 issued a notice to plaintiff No.1 terming him to be a tenant in the suit house and demanded vacant possession. The plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but defendant No.1 has failed to do so and has on the other hand termed them to be tenants in the suit house which has necessitated institution of the suit.