CHAMPAT GIRI Vs. RAMDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 07-04-2000 passed by First Additional District judge, Baitul in Civil Suit No. 71-A/1998, whereby the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction, filed by the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction on the ground that he entered into an agreement on 14-06-1997 (Ex. P/1) with the appellant for sale of an area of 1. 619 hectare plus 'aa' portion of the well and way out of total area of 2. 428 hectare of survey No. 266/1, Patwari halka No. 52 of Village Jamathi of Tahsil Bhenshdehi District Baitul for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakh. An agreement was reduced in writing on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/ -. At the time of execution of the agreement entire sale consideration of Rs. 2 lakh was paid to the appellant. It is also alleged that at the time of execution of agreement appellant/defendant intimated that he had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a Tractor and in case he failed to pay the amount, said agreement will come to an end, therefore, he is in need of money. Hence, he entered into an agreement with the respondent.

(3.) AS per the agreement possession of the suit land was handed over to the respondent and since then he is in possession of the land in question. It is also alleged that the appellant immediately after receipt of rs. 2 lakh from the respondent purchased a Tractor bearing registration No. MTR 3414. As per terms of the agreement, a sale deed has to be executed by November, 1997. Respondent/plaintiff number of times requested the appellant to execute a sale deed, but he gave assurance that land is already in possession of the respondent and at any time he will execute the sale deed. When he failed to execute the sale deed, plaintiff/respondent alongwith one Radheshyam Patel, Sarpanch of village Hidli had gone to the appellant's place and requested to execute the sale deed, but no sale deed was executed. Thereafter, respondent vide registered notice dated 29-11-1997 (Ex. P/4) asked the appellant to execute a sale deed within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which he will take appropriate legal action in accordance with law. On 29-7-1998 again a notice was issued to the appellant vide Ex. P/6. Thereafter, on 5. 10. 1998 a dispute arose between the appellant and respondent in respect of possession of the suit land, respondent lodged the report at police station aathner on 5-10-1998 vide Ex. P/7. Matter was amicably settled between the parties and a compromise was reduced in writing vide Ex. P/10 on 11-10-1998 in presence of three attesting witnesses by which appellant admitted that he will not dispossess the respondent from the suit land. The appellant gave his reply to the second notice vide Ex. P/11 on 10-8-1998, denying all the allegations made in the notice. The suit was filed on 25-8-1998.