RAMVILAS SINGH Vs. SHRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been preferred by LRs of defendant No. 1 Ramvilas through his legal representatives against the judgment and decree dated 23 rd July, 2010 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior whereby, the suit preferred by respondent No. 1 Shriram S/o Nandram for specific performance of contract has been partially allowed and decreed in his favour.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff preferred a suit for specific performance of contract against the present appellant Ramvilas and other respondents/defendants with the allegations that an agreement to sell has been executed on 15/10/2003 in respect of the land situate at Khasra Nos. 88 area 0.199 hectare, 89 area 0.098 hectare, 91 area 0.100 hectare, total 0.397 hectares (1 Bigha 18 Biswa), situate at village Gulgulpura, Pargana and District Gwalior owned by defendant No. 1 who agreed to sale the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 3,10,000/- out of which Rs. 2,30,000/- was received in cash in front of witnesses and he executed the agreement to sell. Rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 80,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff within one year . Plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the amount and at the time of filing of plaint also he was ready to pay. On 17/9/2004, plaintiff through his advocate sent a notice through registered post as well as UPC in which he informed the defendant No. 1 to remain present on 27/9/2004 in the office of Sub-Registrar Gwalior for execution of sale deed; where, he would paid the remaining amount before the execution of the sale deed. Said registered notice returned back with the remark "Intimated" from post office but notice through UPC was received by defendant No. 1 but he did not turn up for execution of sale deed nor intimated the plaintiff to appear on some other day. It was further alleged that defendant is trying to dispose of the property to some other persons, therefore, notice has been sent and suit has been filed for specific performance of the contract.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 rebutted the claim and allegations through written statement and submitted that defendant No. 1 is not the owner of the property at present because he disposed off the land to different persons through different registered sale deeds. He mentioned the different sale deeds executed in favour of different persons on different dates as referred in the written statement. It was also averred that defendant No. 1 purchased the land on 3/1/2003 and 13/1/2003 through registered sale deeds from Lalaram S/o Lakhua, resident of Gulgulpura and after mutation of his name, land was disposed off while bifurcating in different pieces and disposed it off to different persons.