HAJARILAL Vs. PHOOLCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance.

(2.) DEFENDANT Phoolchand for himself and his minor son Tilokchand agreed to sell to Plaintiff Hajarilal his house situated in Mouja Manawar for a consideration of Rs. 500. The contract took place on 7 -7 -1940. In pursuance of this contract Rs. 25 were paid as earnest. On 30 -7 -1940, Phoolchand received Rs. 7 -4 -0 defraying the costs of preparation of deed of sale and a map of the property agreed to be sold. This amount represented half the costs requisite for the purpose On 15 -4 -1943 Phoolchand refused to perform the contract by executing a sale deed although the Plaintiff was willing to pay the unpaid price.

(3.) THE Defendant denied the contract and raised several other objections. Two out of them were on the question of limitation and invalidity of the contract on the ground of absence of a contract in writing.