ABDUL KALAM Vs. MAYABAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has filed the appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.99 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Suit No.37-A/92 rejecting the suit for specific performance of the contract based on agreement to sell dated 13.2.90 (Ex-P/1). In this appeal appellant is referred as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant.

(2.) The following undisputed facts have come on record thatHarnam Singh was the husband of the defendant No.1 Mayabai and father of defendant No.2 Jaswant Singh and defendant No.3 Bablu. When Harnam Singh died the defendants No. 2 and 3 were minor. Harnam Singh was owner of the disputed property which he had purchased vide registered sale deed dated 13.4.87 (Ex-P/5) from Kallu and two others.

(3.) Facts in brief of the plaint are that Harnam Singh entered into a contract to sell the disputed property on 13.2.90 for consideration of Rs.31,000/-. The agreement of sale was executed by the Harnam Singh in favour of the plaintiff. Rs.14,000/- were paid in cash. The plaintiff has further alleged that 6.5 horse power Kirlosicor Diesel Engine costing Rs.7000/-, suction Pipe 25 ft. costing Rs.500/-, Plastic Pipe 500 ft. costing Rs.1250/-, water pipe 100 ft. costing Rs.700/- and two oxen costing Rs.3800/-, 5 quintal wheat costing Rs.1700/- total cost Rs.15,000/- were given to the plaintiff. Possession of the disputed property was also given by Harnam Singh vide agreement to sell Ex-P/1. Plaintiff requested Harnam Singh on 7.8.90 for executing the sale deed in his favour by issuing a registered notice to him but Harnam Singh falsely replied the notice and did not execute the sale deed as per agreement to sell. Plaintiff has further alleged that Harnam Singh died on 30.10.90 thereafter the suit was filed against his legal representatives defendant No. 1 to 3 for specific performance of the contract.