ATUL KUMAR JAIN Vs. SHRIRAM @ RADHESHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28 -3 -2002 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 31 A/2000 whereby the suit of specific performance of agreement of the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant's case in short was that on 7 -8 -1998 the respondent No. 1 agreed to sell the land bearing Khasra No. 28/15 area 0.053 hectare and the house constructed thereon measuring 23 x 45 ft. in consideration of Rs. 4 lacs situated at village Kheri (Shahpura), Tehsil Patan, District Jabalpur. The respondent No. 1 received Rs. 50,000/ - as an earnest money, executed the agreement embodying the condition therein to sell the disputed property in a year on payment of balance amount of consideration. He was having the money all the times and was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but respondent No. 1 avoided and did not execute the registered sale deed and ultimately on 18 -6 -1999 he denied. In the meantime, the appellant came to know that respondent No. 1 is trying to sell the disputed property to respondents No. 8 and 9, therefore, he gave the notice through his counsel to respondents No. 1, 8 and 9 on 23 -6 -1999. The notice was received by them. He also came to know that respondents No. 1 to 3 executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 8 of the disputed property on 17 -6 -1999. The respondents No. 4 to 7 also gave the consent for execution of this sale deed. Since the respondent No. 1 has already entered the agreement of the disputed property in favour of the appellant, therefore, the sale deed ought not to have been executed in favour of the respondent No. 8. On 5 -8 -1999 the appellant again gave the legal notice to respondent Nos. 1, 8 and 9 through his counsel but no reply was sent by the respondents. Therefore, the suit was filed to pass the decree directing the respondent No. 1 to execute and register the sale deed after receiving the balance amount of consideration as per agreement dated 7 -8 -1998 and to handover the vacant possession of the disputed property to him or in the alternative the prayer was made to direct the respondent No. 1 to return the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/ - along with interest and cost thereon amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/ -. The further relief was sought to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to null and void and also the decree of permanent injunction directing the respondents not to alienate the disputed property to anybody else.

(3.) BOTH the parties adduced the evidence before the trial Court and after appreciating the evidence the trial Court found that the appellant has not established his case and hence dismissed the suit.