SITARAM Vs. TULARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal against the trial Court's order dt. 14-12-1987, passed by the District Judge, Mandleshwar, in Civil Original Suit No. 1-A of 1987, rejecting this application for an ad interim injunction and vacating the ex parte order of injunction passed in his favour on 16-4-1987.

(2.) Short facts of the case are : Appellant and respondents 1 and 2 are real brothers Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dt. 13-3-1986, by which the respondent 1 had agreed to sell his agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 84/3 and 84/5, admeasuring 2.95 acres and 1.70 acres respectively, situated in village, Umariya, Tehsil Kasrawad, District West Nimar, to the plaintiff for Rs. 40,000/-, out of which, Rs. 30,000/- had been paid at the time of the agreement and the balance of Rs. 10,000/-, carrying interest at thereto of 2% per annum, was payable at the time of registration of sale deed. It was plaintiff-appellants pleaded case that he was delivered possession of the land of 13-3-1986. The appellant has averred in plaint-para 3 that he went to pay the balance amount with interest to the respondent, who refused to accept it saying that he was not willing to sell the laud. It has also bee n averred that the plaintiff on his part, had all along been ready and willing to pay the amount within the stipulated time (i.e. 13-3-1986), as per the agreement. A notice dt. 20-3-1987, was, therefore, served on the defendant-respondent 1, calling upon him to perform his part of the contract. This notice was received on 24-3-1987 and replied to by the respondent through his counsel on 26-3-1987, denying the alleged agreement and receipt of consideration of Rs. 30.000/-. It was also made clear to the plaintiff through this reply that he was in possession of the land solely on account of the fact that the land was given to him for cultivation on Munafa basis for one year, which term was to expire on Baisakh Sudi Ekam of the year, corresponding to 29-4-1987 and he was, therefore, called upon to restore possession to the respondent 1, on expiry of the term.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the cause of action for filing of the suit accrued to him on 13-3-1987, when he claims to have approached the respondent No. 1 for paying the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and called upon him to execute a sale deed, as agreed, but the respondent declined. The original agreement is on record.