LAWS(MPH)-1993-9-27

BASANTILAL JAGANNATH MAHAJAN Vs. RAMESHWARPRASAD NANOOLAL MAHAJAN

Decided On September 16, 1993
Basantilal Jagannath Mahajan Appellant
V/S
Rameshwarprasad Nanoolal Mahajan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First appeal, presented under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20 -4 -1976 rendered by the Addl. Judge, Mandsaur Camp Garoth to the Court of the District Judge, Mandsaur in COS No. 4 -B/74 (old No. 8 -B/ 71), thereby granting the relief of specific performance of the contract as pleaded in the plaint.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that survey Nos. 1280 and 1281 area 1.021 acres, owned by the appellant -defendant, are situated in village Shamgarh, District Mandsaur. Excluding the portion of this land i.e. 60 feet in width on the Southern. side near the fencing the remaining portion of these survey numbers was contracted to be sold on a consideration of Rs. 11,000/ - on 13 -9 -1963. This contract was preceded by earlier agreements on 30 -9 -1961,19 -10 -1961, 6 -11 -1961 and 29 -5 -1962. Out of this consideration, the sum of Rs. 6,000/ - was paid to the defendant whereas the balance consideration of Rs. 5,000/ - was agreed to be paid between the period 1 -1 -1964 and 1 -5 -1964 in five instalments of Rs. 1,000/ - each. The possession, subsequent to the contract dated 13 -9 -1963 is with the respondent. It was pleaded that sum of Rs. 4,500/ - was paid by the respondent to the appellant through his agent Shrikrishna Maheshwari and the balance sum of Rs. 500/ - was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the document. On demand, the appellant failed to execute the sale -deed whereas the respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On non -compliance, the respondent filed the suit claiming specific performance of the contract dated 13 -9 -1963 after issuing the notice and receiving the intimation of refusal on 7 -10 -1968. The appellant resisted the claim on number of grounds and asserted that the respondent committed the breach of the contract and was not even ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The appellant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. On evaluation of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract and directed the appellant to execute the sale -deed on receiving the balance consideration of Rs. 500/ -. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the appellant -defendant has preferred this first appeal.

(3.) SHRI S. D. Sanghi, learned senior counsel with Shri N. K. Sanghi, has impugned the judgment and decree on grounds, prodigious in number, as categorised below -