PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH Vs. GULAB JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of CPC has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 18/11/2022 passed by Principal District Judge, Bhopal in RCA No. 96 of 2022 arising out of Judgment and Decree dtd. 30/7/2022 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhopal in RCS No 796A/2016.

(2.) The Appellant is the defendant who has lost his case from the Court of First Appellate Court.

(3.) The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract pleading interalia that the defendant was the owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Kh. No. 173/k area 0.15 acres, Kh. No. 296 area 0.8 acres, total area 0.23 acres situated in village Khajurikala, Tahsil Huzur, Distt. Bhopal, having purchased the same by registered sale deed dtd. 6/2/1995. The defendant got his name duly mutated in the revenue records. The defendant gave a proposal for sale of the disputed property and accordingly, a token money of Rs.5,000.00 was paid and a public notice was published in the news paper on 13-2- 2000, expressing intention to purchase the land. When no objection was received, therefore, on 19/12/2000, an agreement to purchase was executed for a consideration amount of Rs.1,15,000.00. An amount of Rs.95,000.00 was paid on 19/12/2000 in cash and a cheque of Rs.15,000.00 was given. Accordingly, the entire consideration amount was paid. The possession of the land was also given to the plaintiff. It was mentioned in the agreement that the plaintiff can get the sale deed executed as and when he desires. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed on various occasions, but the defendant on the pretext of shortage of time, said that possession has been given and time is not the essence of contract, therefore, the plaintiff also did not insist for execution of the sale deed. Thus, the defendant avoided to execute the sale deed on number of occasions. On 28/3/2016, a general notice was once again got published in the news paper and since no objection was received and accordingly, the plaintiff made arrangements for money for execution of sale deed, but then the defendant refused to execute the sale deed and also extended a threat that the plaintiff must remove his possession. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute from 19/12/2000, i.e. after making payment of entire consideration amount and the defendant was continuously avoiding the execution of the sale deed and now he has refused to execute the sale deed. Accordingly, the suit for specific performance of contract was filed claiming that the cause of action arose for the first time on 19/12/2000 when the agreement to sell was executed and on 4/4/2016, when the plaintiff made police report regarding refusal by defendant to execute the sale deed and on 16-6- 2016, when the plaintiff sent a registered notice and on 22/6/2016, when reminder was sent by the plaintiff.