GURUVACHAN SINGH Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1992 by I Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 7-A/1986 whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for possession of the suit-house and damages for use and occupation was decreed.

(2.) Undisputably, the suit-house, bears House No. 200/1 Ward No. 17, Sonarpara, Nazul Sheet No. 300 Plot No. 43 area 1054 sq. ft., and is fully described in the map attached to the plaint. The suit- house was of the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff. He had agreed to sell it to the appellant/defendant by agreement dated 7-8-1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid, as advance, by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent also delivered possession of the suit-house on the same date. i. e., on 7-8-1982 to the defendant/appellant. It was agreed between the parties that the balance amount of price, i.e., Rs. 20,000/- would be paid by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent by 21-9-1982, upon which the plaintiff/respondent would execute the sale- deed of the suit-house in favour of the defendant/appellant It was further agreed that on default as above, the advance amount of Rs. 5,000/- paid by the defendant/appellant would be forfeited by the plaintiff/respondent. The sale-deed in terms as above could not be executed and the parties exchanged notices.

(3.) The plaintiff/respondent in the plaint averred that the defendant/appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract of sale. Therefore, a notice was sent by the plaintiff on 16-9-1982 to the defendant/appellant by registered post calling upon him to get the sale-deed executed failing which the advance amount paid by the defendant/ appellant to the plaintiff/respondent would be forfeited and that the defendant/appellant would further be liable to pay damages @ Rs. 10/- per day for the use and occupation of the suit-house. A reply dated 18-9-1982 was sent by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent. It was further averred by the plaintiff/respondent that on the stipulated date agreed to between the parties for the registration of the sale-deed, i.e., on 21-9-1982, he had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Raigarh, but the defendant did not fulfil his part of the contract and did not get the sale- deed executed. It has further been averred that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to forfeit the amount of Rs. 5,000/- and was also entitled to recover possession and also damages @ Rs. 10/- per day from the defendant/appellant.