SER SINGH Vs. KRIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9/8/1990 passed by Additional District Judge, Khurai in Regular Appeal No. 19A/84 (102A/89) reversing the judgment and decree dated 17/2/1984 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-2, Khurai in Civil Original Suit No. 42-A/1977 whereby the suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of appellants.

(2.) According to the factual matrix of the case, late Gorelal, the predecessor of the appellants, has filed a suit for specific performance against Kripal Singh, the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1A to IF and respondent No. 2. Such suit was based on compromise decree dated 20-4-1974 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1970. According to this compromise, Kripal Singh and respondent No. 2 were bound to execute a sale-deed in favour of Gorelal regarding agriculture land bearing Survey No. 96/1 area 0.75 decimal for consideration of Rs. 3,200/-. After paying Rs. 2,926/- deducting the earnest money and for the land bearing Survey No. 79/1 area 1.35 decimal for a consideration of Rs. 600/- such contract should have been performed on or before 1-6-1974. It is also alleged in the plaint that deceased Gorelal and his son Bhagwandas along with amount of consideration went to the office of the Registrar on 31-5-1974 to get the execution and registration of the sale-deeds, in this regard necessary stamps were also purchased by them but only respondent No. came there and asked to Gorelal that Kripal Singh had gone for some religious work and the sale-deed would be executed on 1-6-1974. On account of this Gorelal left the stamps papers with petition writer and went back to the village. As per request of respondent No. 2, the said Gorelal along with his son and attesting witnesses had come to the Registrar Office on 1-6-74 at 11 o'clock. After waiting for some time when respondents did not come, then they went to the Bank and deposited the aforesaid amount, for the payment consideration to the respondents. Thereafter Gorelal has informed to the respondents through telegraphic notices regarding his readiness and willingness to perform the contract of his part. Then Kripal Singh and respondent No. came there who have been informed by Gorelal about depositing the money with the Bank. Subsequently, on their demand the amount was managed from other sources to perform his part of the contract. But the respondents, instead of executing the saledeed, left the office of the Registrar saying that now they will see how the sale-deed is executed. On non-performing the contract by respondents on their part, the predecessor of appellants had filed the suit as mentioned above.

(3.) In the written statement of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the averments made by the appellants/plaintiffs have been denied. According to it, the terms and conditions of the compromise decree, dated 20-4-1974, was violated by the predecessor of the appellants as he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; while respondent No. 2 and Kripal Singh predecessor of respondent Nos. 1(A) to 1(F) were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract regarding execution of the sale-deed up to 1-6-1974 they also mentioned other circumstances in respect of it.