E NAGESHWAR RAO Vs. DINESH CHANDRA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, First Appeals Nos. 195 and 238 of 1974, arise out of a suit for specific performance-Appeal No. 195 by the defendant is against the judgment of the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur, decreeing the plaintiff's claim for specific performance, while Appeal No. 238 is by the plaintiff against disallowing of costs.

(2.) The relevant facts, shortly stated, are as follows. The defendant, E. Nageshwar Rao, entered into a contract with the plaintiff, to sell a plot out of the compound of his bungalow at Link Road, Bilaspur, measuring 35' X 60' @ Rs. 7 per sq. ft. The terms of the contract are embodied in writing, Ex. P-2, dated 31-1-1971. The defendant received Rs. 1,000 as earnest money in pursuance of the contract. The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the saledeed was to be executed and registered and possession of the plot delivered on 1-3-1971 but in spite of his requests the defendant did not turn up for execution of the saledeed, that, even thereafter, he approached the defendant on many occasions, who orally, as also in writing, postponed the registration of the sale-deed on some pretext or the other, and that, finally he served a notice on the defendant to which no reply was sent, and that, the defendant continues in possession of the plot but wants to avoid the performance of contract.

(3.) To the plaintiff's claim for specific performance, the defendant pleaded, inter alia, that he was always willing to perform the contract and had no intention to dishonour the commitment; that it was due to certain other engagements that he had to postpone the matter; that the plot was not demarcated and the plaintiff did not give opportunity for that work; that though he wrote several letters to the plaintiff for postponement, he finally asked him to meet him on 62- 1973, but the plaintiff did not turn up and himself did not avail of the opportunity and had instead in hot-haste and maliciously dragged him into the litigation; and, that though the expenses were to be borne by the parties equally, initially the plaintiff was to purchase the stamp-paper for the sale deed and to incur expenses of registration, later half of the amount was to be deducted from the remaining sale consideration, and this was not done. In other words, his case was that the plaintiff himself was in breach and, therefore, not entitled to the relief of specific performance. That plea of his has not prevailed and the learned Addl. District Judge has decreed the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.