LAXMICHAND Vs. MURTY SHRI LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 6th december, 1996 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Suit no. 25-A/96. Vide impugned judgment the learned Judge has dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for specific performance of the contract.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal, in brief, are that this civil suit has been filed by deceased appellant Laxmichand against the respondents, alleging therein that respondent No. 1 being a registered public trust, conducted one public auction after seeking permission dated 1 -7-77 from respondent No. 2, the registrar, Public Trust. Public Notice was issued and 14th August, 1977 was fixed for public auction. After depositing required amount of Rs. 500/- the appellant took part in the bid and his bid being highest of Rs. 20,000/-, was accepted. As per rules, he deposited Rs. 4,500/- on 16th August, 1977. For remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- an agreement was executed in between the trustees of respondent No. 1 and the plaintiff and it was agreed to between both the parties that remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- was to be given by the plaintiff to respondent No. 1 at the time of execution of the sale deed. As alleged by the plaintiff he was always ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed by respondent No. 1 on compliance of the aforementioned agreement, but on account of an order dated 23-8-77 passed by respondent No. 2, the Registrar public Trust, sale-deed could not be executed by respondent No. 1. Vide order dated 23-8-77 respondent No. 2 directed for resale for which he was not authorized. Once the permission was given by him for sale, he was functus officio and having no jurisdiction to order resale.

(3.) INITIALLY, the suit was filed against first four respondents but thereafter in compliance of the order of the Trial Court, 5th respondent was added. Respondent No. 1 while admitting the factual aspects alleged in the plaint, in additional pleadings of written statement, has averred that on account of the order dated 23-8-77, in compliance of the agreement, sale-deed could not be executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also averred that until order dated 23-8-77 is not set aside, it is to be complied with by the respondent No. 1. In case, this order is set aside, then respondent No. 1 is ready to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant.