KRIPASHANKAR RAIKWAR Vs. SUBHASHCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2014 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No.25-A/2013 whereby he rejected the appellant's appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed by Sixth Civil Judge Class I, Sagar in Civil Suit No.37-A/2012 whereby learned Civil Judge rejected the appellant's suit filed for specific performance of contract on the ground that appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit No.37-A/2012 against the respondents before Civil Judge Class I, Sagar for decree of specific performance of contract and also for permanent injunction averring that on 07.01.2010 the respondents No.1 to 3 agreed to sale plot No.40/80 (total 3200 sq.ft.) situated in survey No.58/4 P.H. No.44/63 in mouza Tili, District Sagar (hereinafter referred as 'suit plot') to appellant at the rate of Rs.300/- per square feet i.e., Rs.9,60,000/- and respondents No.1 to 3 also executed agreement of sale in his favour on 07.01.2010 after taking Rs.10,000/- as advance. The sale deed was to be executed up to 10.03.2010. It was also agreed between the parties that respondent No.1 to 3 shall execute sale deed of suit land after mutating their names in revenue record of suit land because the suit land was recorded in the name of earlier owner Smt. Sudha Soukhiya. The appellant was always ready and willing to get the sale deed of disputed land executed in his favour and orally insisted respondents No.1 to

(3.) to execute the sale deed but the respondents No.1 to 3 could not get their names mutated in the revenue record before the statutory date of execution of sale deed dated 10.03.2010 and ultimately got their names mutated on 03.08.2010. Later, on 16.03.2012 the appellant sent a registered notice to them for executing the sale deed of disputed land in his favour but the respondent No.1 to 3 in their reply to said notice on 17.04.2012 stated that the sale deed was to be executed up to 10.03.2010 but was not done by the appellant until the due date and therefore, now agreement dated 10.03.2010 is not binding upon them. The appellant thereafter on 17.05.2012 again sent second notice to respondent No.1 to 3 but they did not execute the sale deed of the disputed land in appellant's favour so they be directed to do the same. 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 in their written statement admitted that they had executed the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant on 07.01.2010 for selling the disputed plot at Rs.9,60,000/- to the appellant and had also taken Rs.10,000/- as advance but denied from the fact that the appellant was ready and willing to execute the sale deed of the disputed land in his favour and further submitted that as per agreement, the appellant did not get the sale deed executed upto 10.03.2010 and due to death of wife of respondent No.1 and mother of respondent No.2 & 3, they wanted to purchase the house in Jabalpur therefore they were in need of money but appellant was not ready to purchase their suit plot. So the respondents No.1 to 3 could not purchase house in Jabalpur. They insisted the appellant several times to get the sale deed of disputed land executed but appellant was not interested and prayed for dismissal of the suit.