LAXMI NARAYAN RAM CHARAN NOGHRAIYA Vs. BRIJLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CORRECTNESS of the judgment passed in First Appeal No. 147/84 by a learned Single Judge of this Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in C. S. No. 2-A/83 wherein, the relief of specific performance was granted, is called in question by the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) THE present appellant instituted in C. S. No. 2-A/83 for specific performance of contract on the basis of the document dated 11-3-1980 (Ex. P-1) executed by the original defendant, Brijlal, in favour of the plaintiff to sell his house for consideration of Rs. 50,000/ -. According to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 12,500/- was paid on the date of agreement and the balance of Rs. 37,500/was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the document. Requisite expenses for execution and registration of the sale-deed were to be borne by the purchaser. The sale-deed was to be registered on or before 14-4-1980. It was further averred in the plaint that on 16-4-1980 a portion of the suit house was delivered to the respondents after receiving a further amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards balance of sale-consideration which was required by the defendant to discharge a decretal debt. It was put forth by the plaintiff that the defendant avoided to execute the sale-deed though he was noticed to do so after receiving balance amount of sale consideration. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to pay sum of Rs. 37,500/- the balance of the sale-consideration, if payment of Rs. 1,000/- paid on 16-4-1980 was not accepted by the Court.

(3.) THE defendant resisted the prayer by asserting that one of the material terms between the parties was about reconveyance of the property, if the sale consideration was repaid within five years from the date of sale but the defendant did not agree to incorporate this term in the sale-deed and, therefore, the sale-deed could not be executed. The alleged payment of Rs. 1,000/- on 16-4-1980 was controverted. It was also alleged that the plaintiff did not perform his part of his contract and, therefore, he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance.