SUJAN SINGH SADHANA Vs. MOHKAM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal, against whom a decree for possession by specific performance of an agreement of sale has been passed by the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27th of Oct., 1959(Ext. P-1) whereby the defendant is alleged to have agreed to sell one-half share in bungalow No. K51/5/13 situated at Court Road, Amritsar, along with vacant land and outhouses appurtenant thereto. The suit property is an evacuee property which vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Properties and afterwards in the Central Government by virtue of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Central Government under the provisions of the said Act through the Local District Rent and Managing Officer put the property on auction-sale on 19th Oct., 1950. The parties are said to be displaced persons. According to the plaintiff, at one stage of the auction he and the defendant mutually agreed not to outbid each other and they both entered into a mutual under-standing hereby the plaintiff was refrained from giving any further bid at that auction, and the defendant was thus to convey one-half share of the property in favour of the plaintiff in the event of acceptance of their bid and on the transfer of property in defendant's favour by the Central Government pursuant to the said auction-sale. The plaintiff maintains that in pursuance of that mutual understanding refrained himself from giving any further bid at the auction and the defendant gave a bid of Rs. 68,100/-which was finally accepted buy the authorities concerned.

(3.) The plaintiff further states that afterwards on 27th of Oct., 1959, the defendant executed in his favour the agreement, a copy of which is also Ext. P. 7 promising to convey one-half share in the property in his favour after the sale certificate had been given to the defendant by the Central Government under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The agreement shows that the defendants was to furnish as consideration of the sale, verified claims in the aggregate amount of Rs. 68,100/- out of which verified claim to the extent of 10 per cent had been made over by him to the Government by way of earnest money at the auction-sale. The relevant terms and conditions of the agreement are as under :- "(a) That Rs. 2,200/- (Rupees two thousand and two hundred only) are being paid as an earnest money by the purchaser to the seller by Cheque No. G-025218 dated 27-10-1959 on the Allahabad Bank Ltd., Amritsar, and when the payment of Rs. 34,050/ (Rupees thirty four thousand and fifty only) in the shape of verified clam or bonds shall be made by the purchaser to the seller and accepted by the department the sum of Rupees 2,200/- paid as an earnest money shall be refunded. (b) That the purchaser shall submit bonds or verified claim of Rs. 34,050/- within the specified period to the seller when demanded in writing by the seller, dully supported by the required formalities. (c) That in case the bid of the seller is not accepted by the sanctioning authority, the earnest money paid by the purchaser shall be refunded to him within a week from the intimation of rejection of the bid for which the purchaser shall be informed by the seller. (d) That if any default is found in the claim or bonds of any of the parties, each will be solely responsible for it. (e) That the sale deed shall be executed by the seller in favour of the purchaser when demanded in writing within thirty days from the date the property is registered in the name of the seller and the intimation of the same shall be given to the purchaser by the seller in writing and all expenses pertaining to registration etc. for the sale of half share of bungalow shall be borne by the purchaser. (f) That the income, rents, taxes and profits, liabilities and losses of the above-mentioned property shall be shared by the parties equally till the execution of the sale is completed." The plaintiff further pleaded that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant illegally and without reasonable cause has repudiated the same and has not allowed him to share the profits accruing from this property as per terms of the agreement.