SUSHILA DEVI Vs. LAXMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the lower Court's decree for specific performance of a contract dated 20 February 1957 whereby she was said to have undertaken to re-convey the immovable property purchased by her by a sale deed dated 19 February 1957.

(2.) THE material facts appearing in the pleadings and evidence, which are not now in contest, may be shortly stated. In Chandubhata, a ward of Bilaspur town, there is a row of houses known as Jacob Chawl, which was formerly owned by one J. A. Jacob, who had, by conversion, became a Hindu. He died in 1944 leaving behind him surviving his widow Laxmibai (plaintiff) and children, including a minor son Surya Prakash. One of the blocks of the Jacob Chawl was occupied by D. P. Jagota D. W. 2, a moneylender, who had advanced several sums of money to Laxmibai. She needed Rs. 3,000 more for expenses, including those required for the betrothal of her daughters. She obtained that amount from D. P. Jagota D. W. 2 by executing in favour of the latter's wife, Sushila Devi (defendant), a sale deed Ex. D-5 dated 19 February 1957 for a consideration of Rs. 14,000 in respect of three of these blocks. One of these blocks was, as shown, in occupation of D. P. Jagota D. W. 2 himself as a tenant. Subsequently, he effected repairs and made some improvements in these blocks, two of which were in occupation of tenants who had attorned to the transferee. Finally, on 1 September 1964, Laxmibai sent to Sushila Devi a registered notice Ex. P-12-A to say that she (Laxmibai) was ready and willing to pay Rs. 14,000 and demanded, pursuant to the terms of an Ikrarnama executed in her favour, a reconveyance of the property sold by her. In reply Ex. P-14 dated 5 September 1964 sent by a lawyer, it was stated that the sale deed effected an outright sale for full consideration without any condition for conveying back the property by resale. Nothing was, however, said about the Ikrarnama mentioned in the notice of demand.

(3.) THE Court of first instance found in favour of Laxmibai on all points in controversy and passed, as already indicated, a decree for specific performance of the contract as well as for mesne profits from 3 September 1964, which were directed to be ascertained in execution proceedings.