SARDAR GURUCHARAN SINGH Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff under Section 96 C. P. C. against the judgment and decree by which his suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that defendant No. 6 Smt. Nirmala Raghuvanshi was owner of Plot No. J-203-A of Shahanshah Garden, Govindpura, Bhopal. She agreed to sell one fourth of this plot to plaintiff Gurucharan Singh by agreement dated 8-3-1989 (photocopy of agreement is Ex. P-1) for Rs. 29,700/-and received an advance of Rs. 2,200/- from him. There was some encroachment on this plot and therefore, the sale-deed could not be executed. On 6-5-1989 the plaintiff's father cancelled the agreement and made an endorsement to this effect on the back of the agreement. He received back the amount of Rs. 2,200/- on that date. The original agreement was returned to the defendant No. 6. That was filed by her in some criminal case and that was requisitioned by the Trial Court at the time of evidence.

(3.) THE plaintiff's case was that he is not bound by the cancellation of the agreement by his father. The case of the defendant No. 6 was that the plaintiff's father was acting on behalf of the plaintiff and, therefore, the cancellation of the agreement is binding on the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff's father was acting as agent of the plaintiff in cancelling the contract and taking back the amount of advance and that is binding on the plaintiff.