VIJAY BHADUR AND CHAMPALAL Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1995 passed by learned XIth, Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in civil suit No. 78-A/90 decreeing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance of contract, the defendants/appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The facts shorn on unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass. In brief the case of plaintiff is that, he is the tenant in the house bearing municipal No. 268 (New No. 381), situated at M.G. Road, Indore, the owner of which is appellant Vijay Bahadur (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 1).

(3.) The appellant No. 1 agreed to sell his house tothe plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and executed a document of agreement of Sale (Ex. P/1) on 6-12-1988 and received Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as an advance money from the plaintiff/respondent. It was agreed between the parties in the said agreement that appellant No. 1 would get his name mutated in the Municipal record of the disputed house within a period of six months and thereafter, would receive the balance of sale price Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the appellant No. 2 had knowledge about the execution of the document of agreement of sale (Ex. P/1). It has been contended by the plaintiff that he always remain ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed in his favour, but, as appellant No. 1 failed to get his name mutated in the Municipal record, the sale deed could not be executed.