KALAWATI Vs. DINESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2000 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.5A of 1999 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff Smt. Kalawati for specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 21.5.1996 Ex.P/1 and for permanent injunction against the defendants was dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as the 'plaintiff' and the respondents as the 'defendants'.

(2.) The admitted facts in this case are that the execution and contents of the registered agreement to sell dated 21.5.1996 Ex.P/1 are not disputed. The defendants/respondents issued a notice dated 19.10.1996 Ex.D/2 to the plaintiff requesting her for getting the sale deed executed in her favour. The said notice was replied by the plaintiff vide Ex.D/3 on 25.10.1996. Thereafter the counter reply dated 7.11.1996 Ex.D/4 was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff's Advocate. The plaintiff gave a telegraphic message on 30.12.1996 Ex.P/2 to the defendant for execution of the sale deed which was also replied by the defendants on 3.1.1997 vide Ex.D/5 canceling the contract Ex.P/1. The notice dated 3.2.1997 Ex.D/6 was got issued by the plaintiff through her Advocate to the defendants for performance of the contract. The said notice was replied by the defendants vide Ex.D/ 7. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 14.5.1999.

(3.) The facts, in brief, of the plaint are that on 21.5.1996, the defendants entered into an agreement to sell part of the house bearing No.3/417 (old) and No.37/1162 (New) shown in the map attached with the agreement situated in Ward No.43 Khalasi Colony, Rane Ki Goth, Lashker (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed house") with the plaintiff for the consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- out of which, Rs.50,000/- was paid in advance and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, however, the plaintiff was already in possession of the disputed property as tenant. But in spite of sending telegraphic message and a notice by the plaintiff to the defendants, they were not ready to execute the registry of the said disputed house as per the agreement to sell Ex.P/1 in her favour and as there was possibility of the defendants selling the said house to third party, the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction was filed on 14.5.1999 by the plaintiff against the defendants.